Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • ACTIONS AS CONSTANT RELATIONS (important concept) Identity Consists of a set of

    ACTIONS AS CONSTANT RELATIONS

    (important concept)

    Identity Consists of a set of Constant Relations (Properties) – all the way up from the senses and all the way down from our ideas.

    Identity is discovered by free association, followed by elimination of non-constant relations. (falsification)

    Commensurability can be produced by use of a third reference that renders more than one referent measurable by another. (money, length, space, volume, current).

    Numbers consist of nothing more than names of positions and as such can refer to any constant positional relation, and as such we achieve scale independence. And as such numbers allow us to produce commensurability of most if not all phenomenon.

    All complex phenomenon consists of multiple, and often very dense causal relations and produce semi-constant intermediary relations. And we put our primary effort into determining which of those relations both direct and intermediary contribute to the production of changes in state and which of them do not.

    Humans possess marginally indifferent senses, emotions, and physical capabilities – at least in the sense that we differ in amplitude rather than existence. And for this reason we can imitate (act), sympathize (think), and empathize (feel) one another’s actions, thoughts, and emotions sufficiently to cooperate on means and ends.

    But it rarely occurs to us that while we cannot equate our valuations and therefore emotions, and we cannot equate our understanding unless reduced to a series of simple decidable propositions, we CAN equate actions, the five senses, and simple logical vs illogical relations. And as such, we CAN equate any statements represented as a series of actions that change state.

    In other words, just as prices consist of money and numbers, and those prices create create commensurability between goods, so can our perceptions and actions produce statements that provide commensurability regardless of our knowledge, understanding, and ability.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-11-29 13:39:00 UTC

  • I’m a scientist. I look at the empirical evidence. The empirical evidence is tha

    I’m a scientist. I look at the empirical evidence. The empirical evidence is that the most monstrous of the arts is writing in the grammar and semantics of fictionalism (pseudo-science, pseudo-rationalism, and pseudo-mythology), and in particular the conflation of all of the above. The greatest cause of death in history, other than the great plagues and malaria, is the conflationary grammar of fictionalism. The origin of the conflationary grammar of fictionalism is Pilpul – which is argumentatively indifferent when applied to wisdom myth, literature, history, law, astrology, and numerology. So whether men do evil directly, promote evil by intent, or inspire evil indirectly, there is no difference between the evil wrought at interpersonal, social, and civilizational scale – except, that scale. And of those evils, there is none greater than the use of fictionalism. And no good greater than truth that defeats it. All people are capable of free association. Common people lack the agency to separate the great arts of men, from their great crimes. Simple people never grasp the art, only artist – they are incapable otherwise. But the truth is, without exception, men of low character produce low art. Unfortunately, there is a large market demand for low art by people of low character, whether it be decoration, craft, design, art, myth, literature, history, law, science, or … magic, mysticism, astrology, or numerology. Woody Allen is about as bad a person as walks the earth – which was obvious from his works at the time for those of who have an education in the arts. What difference is it if he produces moving pictures from scripts rather than plays, versus the writings of rousseau (far worse than woody allen) or the works of Foucault (a bad person for certain), or the works of Picasso who was terribly ill mannered, and very close if not certainly a pedophile. And I can’t think of a reason not to destroy their works, for in retrospect, they were all results of the sick minds that made them, and perpetuation of that memory is harmful. But if we are to destroy works, how do we select what to destroy? This is the hard question. And this is why we don’t destroy (many) works – we instead create new ones that demonize the producers and their work. The world will not be harmed by the burning of certain films. Although, it is often better to leave the example of their criminality and evil in the historical literature as a warning to those who might venture into similar territories once again, if they had not that reference to draw from.

  • I’m a scientist. I look at the empirical evidence. The empirical evidence is tha

    I’m a scientist. I look at the empirical evidence. The empirical evidence is that the most monstrous of the arts is writing in the grammar and semantics of fictionalism (pseudo-science, pseudo-rationalism, and pseudo-mythology), and in particular the conflation of all of the above. The greatest cause of death in history, other than the great plagues and malaria, is the conflationary grammar of fictionalism. The origin of the conflationary grammar of fictionalism is Pilpul – which is argumentatively indifferent when applied to wisdom myth, literature, history, law, astrology, and numerology. So whether men do evil directly, promote evil by intent, or inspire evil indirectly, there is no difference between the evil wrought at interpersonal, social, and civilizational scale – except, that scale. And of those evils, there is none greater than the use of fictionalism. And no good greater than truth that defeats it. All people are capable of free association. Common people lack the agency to separate the great arts of men, from their great crimes. Simple people never grasp the art, only artist – they are incapable otherwise. But the truth is, without exception, men of low character produce low art. Unfortunately, there is a large market demand for low art by people of low character, whether it be decoration, craft, design, art, myth, literature, history, law, science, or … magic, mysticism, astrology, or numerology. Woody Allen is about as bad a person as walks the earth – which was obvious from his works at the time for those of who have an education in the arts. What difference is it if he produces moving pictures from scripts rather than plays, versus the writings of rousseau (far worse than woody allen) or the works of Foucault (a bad person for certain), or the works of Picasso who was terribly ill mannered, and very close if not certainly a pedophile. And I can’t think of a reason not to destroy their works, for in retrospect, they were all results of the sick minds that made them, and perpetuation of that memory is harmful. But if we are to destroy works, how do we select what to destroy? This is the hard question. And this is why we don’t destroy (many) works – we instead create new ones that demonize the producers and their work. The world will not be harmed by the burning of certain films. Although, it is often better to leave the example of their criminality and evil in the historical literature as a warning to those who might venture into similar territories once again, if they had not that reference to draw from.

  • I’m a scientist. I look at the empirical evidence. The empirical evidence is tha

    I’m a scientist. I look at the empirical evidence. The empirical evidence is that the most monstrous of the arts is writing in the grammar and semantics of fictionalism (pseudo-science, pseudo-rationalism, and pseudo-mythology), and in particular the conflation of all of the above.

    The greatest cause of death in history, other than the great plagues and malaria, is the conflationary grammar of fictionalism. The origin of the conflationary grammar of fictionalism is Pilpul – which is argumentatively indifferent when applied to wisdom myth, literature, history, law, astrology, and numerology.

    So whether men do evil directly, promote evil by intent, or inspire evil indirectly, there is no difference between the evil wrought at interpersonal, social, and civilizational scale – except, that scale. And of those evils, there is none greater than the use of fictionalism. And no good greater than truth that defeats it.

    All people are capable of free association. Common people lack the agency to separate the great arts of men, from their great crimes. Simple people never grasp the art, only artist – they are incapable otherwise.

    But the truth is, without exception, men of low character produce low art. Unfortunately, there is a large market demand for low art by people of low character, whether it be decoration, craft, design, art, myth, literature, history, law, science, or … magic, mysticism, astrology, or numerology.

    Woody Allen is about as bad a person as walks the earth – which was obvious from his works at the time for those of who have an education in the arts. What difference is it if he produces moving pictures from scripts rather than plays, versus the writings of rousseau (far worse than woody allen) or the works of Foucault (a bad person for certain), or the works of Picasso who was terribly ill mannered, and very close if not certainly a pedophile.

    And I can’t think of a reason not to destroy their works, for in retrospect, they were all results of the sick minds that made them, and perpetuation of that memory is harmful.

    But if we are to destroy works, how do we select what to destroy? This is the hard question. And this is why we don’t destroy (many) works – we instead create new ones that demonize the producers and their work.

    The world will not be harmed by the burning of certain films. Although, it is often better to leave the example of their criminality and evil in the historical literature as a warning to those who might venture into similar territories once again, if they had not that reference to draw from.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-11-28 17:14:00 UTC

  • The Function And Limits Of Moral “Authority”

    THE FUNCTION AND LIMITS OF MORAL “AUTHORITY” (important piece) (*read this*) – Authority (via positiva) vs Decidability (via negativa). – Judges employ the via negativa of decidability in matters of tort for the simple reason that all reciprocity is decidable. The difference between individuals, groups, and nations, is in the scope of investments one is prohibited from imposing a cost against, thereby ‘authorizing’ decidability by reciprocity under tort. Now some groups use high investments in commons and demand high trust reciprocity, and some groups use low investments in commons and demand only low trust reciprocity. Some groups have been through the geographic, cultural, and genetic grinders of agrarianism, holding territory from competitors, and incrementally developing fixed capital, and incrementally expanding the trust network necessary for the production of advanced goods. And some cultures are either one generation removed from pastoralists, or transitioned directly from pastoralists to urbanites. In those cases we see low trust, low investment in commons, narrower definitions of investments (‘interests’), and narrower if not nearly non existent ethics. So for more culturally advanced peoples (higher trust, greater prohibitions on cost imposition and opportunity seizure, land holding, formal institutions of military, judiciary, government, treasury, technology, science, craftsmanship, industry), and for more genetically advanced peoples (production of neoteny, and reduction of the scale of the ‘cost imposing’ classes through reproductive constraint under manorialism), the scope of decidability in matters of tort (violations of reciprocity against the scope of investments) is greater than the imposition of costs cultural, habitual, imaginable, or tolerable for less developed peoples. The only thing interesting about this rather banal bit of empirical social science, is that women in every culture lag their men, and prefer to expand consumption and reverse neoteny, rather than accumulate such territorial capital by the prevention of consumption. And this fact is yet another expression of the difference between between the female reproductive strategy, and the male reproductive strategy. And another expression of the pre-developed people’s free riding on the land, and the advanced people’s productivity. So when one says he exercises “Authority”, in the prohibition of, or restitution for, theft, damage, parasitism, and free riding – he exercises universal justice (via negativa decidability) regardless of individual or social group, by the defense of property. When one says ‘authority’ in the via positiva construction of legislation or regulation, or enforcement of law, regulation and legislation, that prohibits imposition of costs against the investments made by others, he in fact acts morally – period. Just as when one imposes costs against investments made by others by action, regulation, or legislation, or command, then one acts immorally. Because that is the meaning of ‘moral’: reciprocity. This is a terribly uncomfortable truth. Becauses it provides an empirical measure of our contributions to society and therefore demonstrates our inequality of value, as well as the inequality of our groups and nations. And it’s unassailable.

  • The Function And Limits Of Moral “Authority”

    THE FUNCTION AND LIMITS OF MORAL “AUTHORITY” (important piece) (*read this*) – Authority (via positiva) vs Decidability (via negativa). – Judges employ the via negativa of decidability in matters of tort for the simple reason that all reciprocity is decidable. The difference between individuals, groups, and nations, is in the scope of investments one is prohibited from imposing a cost against, thereby ‘authorizing’ decidability by reciprocity under tort. Now some groups use high investments in commons and demand high trust reciprocity, and some groups use low investments in commons and demand only low trust reciprocity. Some groups have been through the geographic, cultural, and genetic grinders of agrarianism, holding territory from competitors, and incrementally developing fixed capital, and incrementally expanding the trust network necessary for the production of advanced goods. And some cultures are either one generation removed from pastoralists, or transitioned directly from pastoralists to urbanites. In those cases we see low trust, low investment in commons, narrower definitions of investments (‘interests’), and narrower if not nearly non existent ethics. So for more culturally advanced peoples (higher trust, greater prohibitions on cost imposition and opportunity seizure, land holding, formal institutions of military, judiciary, government, treasury, technology, science, craftsmanship, industry), and for more genetically advanced peoples (production of neoteny, and reduction of the scale of the ‘cost imposing’ classes through reproductive constraint under manorialism), the scope of decidability in matters of tort (violations of reciprocity against the scope of investments) is greater than the imposition of costs cultural, habitual, imaginable, or tolerable for less developed peoples. The only thing interesting about this rather banal bit of empirical social science, is that women in every culture lag their men, and prefer to expand consumption and reverse neoteny, rather than accumulate such territorial capital by the prevention of consumption. And this fact is yet another expression of the difference between between the female reproductive strategy, and the male reproductive strategy. And another expression of the pre-developed people’s free riding on the land, and the advanced people’s productivity. So when one says he exercises “Authority”, in the prohibition of, or restitution for, theft, damage, parasitism, and free riding – he exercises universal justice (via negativa decidability) regardless of individual or social group, by the defense of property. When one says ‘authority’ in the via positiva construction of legislation or regulation, or enforcement of law, regulation and legislation, that prohibits imposition of costs against the investments made by others, he in fact acts morally – period. Just as when one imposes costs against investments made by others by action, regulation, or legislation, or command, then one acts immorally. Because that is the meaning of ‘moral’: reciprocity. This is a terribly uncomfortable truth. Becauses it provides an empirical measure of our contributions to society and therefore demonstrates our inequality of value, as well as the inequality of our groups and nations. And it’s unassailable.

  • THE FUNCTION AND LIMITS OF MORAL “AUTHORITY” (important piece) (*read this*) – A

    THE FUNCTION AND LIMITS OF MORAL “AUTHORITY”

    (important piece) (*read this*)

    – Authority (via positiva) vs Decidability (via negativa). –

    Judges employ the via negativa of decidability in matters of tort for the simple reason that all reciprocity is decidable. The difference between individuals, groups, and nations, is in the scope of investments one is prohibited from imposing a cost against, thereby ‘authorizing’ decidability by reciprocity under tort.

    Now some groups use high investments in commons and demand high trust reciprocity, and some groups use low investments in commons and demand only low trust reciprocity. Some groups have been through the geographic, cultural, and genetic grinders of agrarianism, holding territory from competitors, and incrementally developing fixed capital, and incrementally expanding the trust network necessary for the production of advanced goods. And some cultures are either one generation removed from pastoralists, or transitioned directly from pastoralists to urbanites. In those cases we see low trust, low investment in commons, narrower definitions of investments (‘interests’), and narrower if not nearly non existent ethics.

    So for more culturally advanced peoples (higher trust, greater prohibitions on cost imposition and opportunity seizure, land holding, formal institutions of military, judiciary, government, treasury, technology, science, craftsmanship, industry), and for more genetically advanced peoples (production of neoteny, and reduction of the scale of the ‘cost imposing’ classes through reproductive constraint under manorialism), the scope of decidability in matters of tort (violations of reciprocity against the scope of investments) is greater than the imposition of costs cultural, habitual, imaginable, or tolerable for less developed peoples.

    The only thing interesting about this rather banal bit of empirical social science, is that women in every culture lag their men, and prefer to expand consumption and reverse neoteny, rather than accumulate such territorial capital by the prevention of consumption. And this fact is yet another expression of the difference between between the female reproductive strategy, and the male reproductive strategy. And another expression of the pre-developed people’s free riding on the land, and the advanced people’s productivity.

    So when one says he exercises “Authority”, in the prohibition of, or restitution for, theft, damage, parasitism, and free riding – he exercises universal justice (via negativa decidability) regardless of individual or social group, by the defense of property.

    When one says ‘authority’ in the via positiva construction of legislation or regulation, or enforcement of law, regulation and legislation, that prohibits imposition of costs against the investments made by others, he in fact acts morally – period. Just as when one imposes costs against investments made by others by action, regulation, or legislation, or command, then one acts immorally. Because that is the meaning of ‘moral’: reciprocity.

    This is a terribly uncomfortable truth.

    Becauses it provides an empirical measure of our contributions to society and therefore demonstrates our inequality of value, as well as the inequality of our groups and nations.

    And it’s unassailable.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-11-28 10:01:00 UTC

  • MISES POSITION IN INTELLECTUAL HISTORY (from elsewhere) Too long an answer for t

    MISES POSITION IN INTELLECTUAL HISTORY

    (from elsewhere)

    Too long an answer for this forum. If I remember you correctly you’re a smart fellow so here is an analytic reduction for you to mull over:

    0 – There are only so many dimensions of actionability available to man, about which he can speak in continuous relations.

    1 – A statement of continuous relations (truth) requires consistency of categorical, logical (internal), empirical(external), operational (existential), voluntary (rational), reciprocal (moral), fully accounted within stated limits, and coherent relations (across all above dimensions).

    2 – No dimension is closed (knowledge is infinite and semantics and grammar are also.) And therefore any dimension must achieve closure by appeal to (inclusion of) subsequent dimensions. All non trivial knowledge is perishable (closed only within specified limits).

    3 – Coherence across all actionable dimensions serves as a competition between dimensions that will falsify inconstant relations within and across dimensions.

    4 – Ergo, all arguments are falsifications, and only truth candidates survive tests of all actionable dimensions. Therefore all non trivial statements that survive tests of actionable dimensions are contingent. (actionable).

    5 – Mises discovered operationalism in economics, as did bridgman in physics, brouwer in math, falsification by popper in the philosophy of science (epistemology), and Hayek in law (after exploring every field), and dozens of predecessors in accounting.

    6 – Mises failure was to rely on the metaphysics (unconscious rules) of his ‘heritage’, as we all do, and conflated law, logic (via-positiva axioms), empiricism (via-negativa theories), and to (again) limit the investments he considered to the intersubjectively verifiable, rather than those investments

    7 – The sciences consist entirely of a set of dimensional due diligences against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion and deceit – and justifications ‘reasons’ (rationalizations) are irrelevant. The means by which we arrive at an hypothesis tells us nothing other than we have found an opportunity for falsification, and if survives falsification we then have a truth candidate in the market for general rules of arbitrary precision that assist us in the identification of opportunities that we may exploit.

    8 – we do not create justifications (excuses) in science (testimony), we create moral and legal excuses only in human cooperation (morality and law). We create proof of constant relations (identity). We create proofs of possibility of operational construction using constant relations. We identify constant relations in the universe through testing. We eliminate ‘imaginary content’ by the reduction of all statements to the vocabulary (semantics) and grammar (fully formed testable statements) and syntax (testable statements in series, from noun to phrase, to sentence, to paragraph to argument). We objectively test the rationality of choice in matters of conflict (which is possible because in choice we are marginally indifferent). We objectively test reciprocity through property. We test full accounting, limits and parsimony, and finally we test coherence of the constant relations across all actionable dimensions of reality.

    9 – The secret of human action is that by limiting our speech to operational language we provide subjective testability to constant relations free of deceits, fictionalisms, obsucrantisms, pretenses of knowledge, suggestion, bias, ignorance, and error. In other words, the most parsimonious testimony we can speak of is in using the constant relations of testable actions of marginal indifference. And if one cannot speak in those terms, one cannot testify to them, since one cannot claim to have performed dimensional due diligence.

    For a variety of complex reasons, I think something on the nature of the first 15 chapters of Human Action are nonsense.

    If it were not for the kantian nonsense rationalism and pseudoscience promoted by ‘libertarians’ and in particular that propaganda organization we call ‘the mises institute’, then we could rescue mises from criticism.

    But his own arrogance was his undoing. he was wrong about a lot of things. Rothbard made it worse. And hoppe made it worse.

    But if we look at it differently, that this failure to solve the scientific method in the early part of the last century led, as Hayek suggested’ to a new era of pseudoscience. And that mises popper and hayek and bridgman and brower… and to some degree Kuhn, all made some progress.

    The interesting observation is that Boole, Babbage, Godel, Turing, and finally Chomsky were on the right track. And because the philosophical discipline was off in la-la-land, trying to preserve their ‘science’, and because the disciplines did not cooperate or communicate or speak in the same terms, no one united them into a single commensurable language.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-11-27 16:47:00 UTC

  • Newbie Information: Possible Criticisms And Post Format Cues

    (a) legit criticisms of my work, and (b) how I structure posts to cue you whether you might want to read them or not. It’s not like my work isn’t open to criticism. Jeez. The whole point of doing work in public is to attract criticism in order to improve the work. Friends, followers, and lurkers have been incredibly helpful and contributed significantly to my ‘community’ project: propertarianism. The correct criticisms of my work are: 1 – it’s not published (that’s true). 2 – it’s not finished in complete enough form that you can understand it without following me for a while. (That’s True.) 3 – I conflate (not on purpose) metaphysics, epistemology and ethics (decidability), with political advocacy (market government) with the cause of western civilization (aryanism: heroism, truth, promise(contract), sovereignty, rule by voluntary reciprocity, and markets in everything as a consequence). This confuses people. It’s a good criticism. 4 – Law (decidability) isn’t ‘enough’ for pedagogy (meaning), and people need religion: ritual and myth. (intuition). This is true. But one of my open research questions is this: is nature, history of family, and history of real heroes, and the truth enough if wrapped in ritual and festival? Can we have a ‘religion without lies’. And I think the answer is yes. The problem is, that’s an entirely different scope of work. And I don’t engage in the pragmatism of conflating the via negativa of law (truth) and the via-positiva of education (religion). So in keeping with the competition between via-positiva and via-negativa my intention is to produce two works, the first law, the second, ‘religion’. I have had this intention for a very long time. I don’t see how to avoid it. I had originally intended to incorporate the law in the CENTER of the ‘religious’ prose with fables in the beginning and history at the end. But that would lead to a ridiculously large tome no one could possibly carry around (i’ve tried). It is possible to condense the scientific content into a constitution of Natural Law (‘the law’) and place that in the center between myth and history. And so I might do that (if I live long enough). But I don’t want to conflate using pragmatism, the necessary competition between very clear truth, and very clear wisdom. That would only continue to duplicate the CRIME of the Abrahamists. 5 – It’s not sufficiently explanatory. Well it is actually and that’s what will horrify you as all your sacred cows are slaughtered without mercy. My work consists of constant relations from physics through sentience. And it’s as dehumanizing as was darwin, copernicus, and aristotle. 6 – It’s pretty counter-intuitive, and hard to understand, because of the terminology. (this is true. but because I must create a universal language of decidability across all fields of human knowledge, I pulled the best term from each field, deflated it, arranged them in series, and this ‘competition’ caused extraordinary narrowing of meaning ( ergo, vast increases in precision). So just as eliminating the divine from argument to gain greater precision we eliminate conflation from argument to gain greater precision. 7 – There are no known technical criticisms. The truth is, that I do not know of any technical criticism of my work and I am seriously doubtful that there will exist any such criticisms – ever. It will take you a very long time to understand why. The reason is, that while I am writing in prose form, the thought process I use is procedural testing of relational calculus. (that’s what databases do). Just as I write law in the language of philosophy using the methods of science. It will be very hard to criticize what I have done here. As far as I know it is not possible. And I am an exhaustive analyst. But the fact that you don’t understand algebraic geometry, understand formal logic, Understand relational calculus, understand algorithms, or understand testimonialism’s dimensional grammar that depends upon definitions in the form of relational calculus, is just a lack of familiarity with the grammar. And I don’t write everything formally. I start with quick sketches, and when I’m done, I should end up with little more than one or more series of dimensional definitions, with all the ‘meaning’ deducible from that set of definitions. Once I have that then I iterate on explaining it until I get as close as possible to aphorisms if I am lucky or operational proofs otherwise, and sometimes I just resort to a narrative that make use of the terms in order to provide context. In other words, I’m writing PROGRAMS, and text is just inline documentation for definitions that perform functions. Now, for those that don’t understand this is the format I use in posts in order to ‘cue’ you as to the content of the post. THE FORMAT OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF POSTS 1 – A POST ————————– THIS MEANS I WROTE IT FOR YOU TO READ AS AN ARGUMENT (this cues you to important stuff) And this is the body text here. Particularly if I break it into paragraphs. –“this is quoting someone else”– ***this is quoting myself*** … this … … is a … … … series that you might want to learn. |SERIES|: This > Is > A > Dimensional > Definition SUBHEADING And more text goes here. Subheadings cue you to the content. Signature Line I use the signature line for myself. So that I can search for the posts I want to publish on my web site later. So they are sort of a ‘stamp of approval’. 2 – A NOTE OR SKETCH ————————– this doesn’t have header, isn’t broken into paragraphs, and doesn’t even use init-caps, so it’s just a record from elsewhere or quick thought or observation, or a work in progress – rumination. 3 – A PERSONAL OPINION ————————– (this doesn’t have a header, is in parenthesis and in all lower case, which means it’s possibly something to ignore … because it’s not an argument. it’s just an opinion or feeling.) 4 – A DIARY ENTRY ————————– (diary entry) this is something I wrote for myself that is unfiltered, and likely includes very personal feelings of my own, or on the state of my thinking, and not something that you will probably want to read unless the psychology that I operate under is of some interest to you or other. =========================== Closing: I work in public, partly to conduct experiments. I am personally open in public because this prevents people attributing psychological motivations to me that I don’t have. I create conflict in order to run tests. The purpose of running a test is to attempt to create a proof. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine THIS IS A REVISION OF AN EARLIER POST. I tend to repeat this post every six months or so. https://propertarianinstitute.com/2017/03/23/the-formatting-of-posts/

  • NEWBIE INFORMATION: POSSIBLE CRITICISMS AND POST FORMAT CUES (a) legit criticism

    NEWBIE INFORMATION: POSSIBLE CRITICISMS AND POST FORMAT CUES

    (a) legit criticisms of my work, and (b) how I structure posts to cue you whether you might want to read them or not.

    It’s not like my work isn’t open to criticism. Jeez. The whole point of doing work in public is to attract criticism in order to improve the work. Friends, followers, and lurkers have been incredibly helpful and contributed significantly to my ‘community’ project: propertarianism.

    The correct criticisms of my work are:

    1 – it’s not published (that’s true).

    2 – it’s not finished in complete enough form that you can understand it without following me for a while. (That’s True.)

    3 – I conflate (not on purpose) metaphysics, epistemology and ethics (decidability), with political advocacy (market government) with the cause of western civilization (aryanism: heroism, truth, promise(contract), sovereignty, rule by voluntary reciprocity, and markets in everything as a consequence). This confuses people. It’s a good criticism.

    4 – Law (decidability) isn’t ‘enough’ for pedagogy (meaning), and people need religion: ritual and myth. (intuition). This is true. But one of my open research questions is this: is nature, history of family, and history of real heroes, and the truth enough if wrapped in ritual and festival? Can we have a ‘religion without lies’. And I think the answer is yes. The problem is, that’s an entirely different scope of work. And I don’t engage in the pragmatism of conflating the via negativa of law (truth) and the via-positiva of education (religion). So in keeping with the competition between via-positiva and via-negativa my intention is to produce two works, the first law, the second, ‘religion’. I have had this intention for a very long time. I don’t see how to avoid it. I had originally intended to incorporate the law in the CENTER of the ‘religious’ prose with fables in the beginning and history at the end. But that would lead to a ridiculously large tome no one could possibly carry around (i’ve tried). It is possible to condense the scientific content into a constitution of Natural Law (‘the law’) and place that in the center between myth and history. And so I might do that (if I live long enough). But I don’t want to conflate using pragmatism, the necessary competition between very clear truth, and very clear wisdom. That would only continue to duplicate the CRIME of the Abrahamists.

    5 – It’s not sufficiently explanatory. Well it is actually and that’s what will horrify you as all your sacred cows are slaughtered without mercy. My work consists of constant relations from physics through sentience. And it’s as dehumanizing as was darwin, copernicus, and aristotle.

    6 – It’s pretty counter-intuitive, and hard to understand, because of the terminology. (this is true. but because I must create a universal language of decidability across all fields of human knowledge, I pulled the best term from each field, deflated it, arranged them in series, and this ‘competition’ caused extraordinary narrowing of meaning ( ergo, vast increases in precision). So just as eliminating the divine from argument to gain greater precision we eliminate conflation from argument to gain greater precision.

    7 – There are no known technical criticisms. The truth is, that I do not know of any technical criticism of my work and I am seriously doubtful that there will exist any such criticisms – ever. It will take you a very long time to understand why. The reason is, that while I am writing in prose form, the thought process I use is procedural testing of relational calculus. (that’s what databases do). Just as I write law in the language of philosophy using the methods of science. It will be very hard to criticize what I have done here. As far as I know it is not possible. And I am an exhaustive analyst.

    But the fact that you don’t understand algebraic geometry, understand formal logic, Understand relational calculus, understand algorithms, or understand testimonialism’s dimensional grammar that depends upon definitions in the form of relational calculus, is just a lack of familiarity with the grammar.

    And I don’t write everything formally. I start with quick sketches, and when I’m done, I should end up with little more than one or more series of dimensional definitions, with all the ‘meaning’ deducible from that set of definitions.

    Once I have that then I iterate on explaining it until I get as close as possible to aphorisms if I am lucky or operational proofs otherwise, and sometimes I just resort to a narrative that make use of the terms in order to provide context.

    In other words, I’m writing PROGRAMS, and text is just inline documentation for definitions that perform functions.

    Now, for those that don’t understand this is the format I use in posts in order to ‘cue’ you as to the content of the post.

    THE FORMAT OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF POSTS

    1 – A POST

    ————————–

    THIS MEANS I WROTE IT FOR YOU TO READ AS AN ARGUMENT

    (this cues you to important stuff)

    And this is the body text here.

    Particularly if I break it into paragraphs.

    –“this is quoting someone else”–

    ***this is quoting myself***

    … this

    … … is a

    … … … series that you might want to learn.

    |SERIES|: This > Is > A > Dimensional > Definition

    SUBHEADING

    And more text goes here. Subheadings cue you to the content.

    Signature Line

    I use the signature line for myself. So that I can search for the posts I want to publish on my web site later. So they are sort of a ‘stamp of approval’.

    2 – A NOTE OR SKETCH

    ————————–

    this doesn’t have header, isn’t broken into paragraphs, and doesn’t even use init-caps, so it’s just a record from elsewhere or quick thought or observation, or a work in progress – rumination.

    3 – A PERSONAL OPINION

    ————————–

    (this doesn’t have a header, is in parenthesis and in all lower case, which means it’s possibly something to ignore … because it’s not an argument. it’s just an opinion or feeling.)

    4 – A DIARY ENTRY

    ————————–

    (diary entry)

    this is something I wrote for myself that is unfiltered, and likely includes very personal feelings of my own, or on the state of my thinking, and not something that you will probably want to read unless the psychology that I operate under is of some interest to you or other.

    ===========================

    Closing:

    I work in public, partly to conduct experiments. I am personally open in public because this prevents people attributing psychological motivations to me that I don’t have. I create conflict in order to run tests. The purpose of running a test is to attempt to create a proof.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    THIS IS A REVISION OF AN EARLIER POST.

    I tend to repeat this post every six months or so.

    https://propertarianism.com/2017/03/23/the-formatting-of-posts/

    Source date (UTC): 2017-11-27 13:33:00 UTC