(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/
Form: Mini Essay
-
Q&a: Curt: Big Data?
Q&A: CURT: BIG DATA? —“It’s overrated.”—Herbert S Vogelsang Um. Pretty much. In Knowledge of Human Beings: I think that big data is a substitute for praxeology, because it is impolitic to speak praxeological under postmodernism – big data provides excuses for action without admitting that human behavior is predictable and stereotypical. In Economics: It does assist us in inventory management (efficiency) at the cost of increasing economic fragility (stored capital). There is a fairly low limit to what can be learned about people from big data and almost all of it is predictable. In Business: Most business uses of data serve to prevent mal-entrenchment of the bureaucracy (lessening innovators dilemma) Much business use of data tends to direct a business to certainty of revenue production rather than innovation, thereby maximizing short term and destroying the long term viability of the company (Sun, Microsoft, Apple, and now Google). Most marketing uses of data simply decrease the cost of advertising to those who aren’t interested. Big data does provide short term competitive advantage. In government: All increases in data have led to increases in taxation. All increases in taxation have led to decreases in liberty. All decreases in liberty have led to calcification. Now if you look at that series of statements it’s rather obvious that the same behavior of increasing certainty and rents is the normal human behavior that leads to exhaustion of an opportunity, whereas what preserves the value of capital structures is GENERATING OPPORTUNITY that can then be exploited. At present, small companies generate opportnity, producing off book losses that are hidden in the economy. While large companies buy the R&D of those smaller companies and obtain the profits of them through preservation of the concentration of capital in a customer-access organization. -
Q&A: CURT: BIG DATA? —“It’s overrated.”—Herbert S Vogelsang Um. Pretty much.
Q&A: CURT: BIG DATA?
—“It’s overrated.”—Herbert S Vogelsang
Um. Pretty much.
In Knowledge of Human Beings:
I think that big data is a substitute for praxeology, because it is impolitic to speak praxeological under postmodernism – big data provides excuses for action without admitting that human behavior is predictable and stereotypical.
In Economics:
It does assist us in inventory management (efficiency) at the cost of increasing economic fragility (stored capital).
There is a fairly low limit to what can be learned about people from big data and almost all of it is predictable.
In Business:
Most business uses of data serve to prevent mal-entrenchment of the bureaucracy (lessening innovators dilemma)
Much business use of data tends to direct a business to certainty of revenue production rather than innovation, thereby maximizing short term and destroying the long term viability of the company (Sun, Microsoft, Apple, and now Google).
Most marketing uses of data simply decrease the cost of advertising to those who aren’t interested.
Big data does provide short term competitive advantage.
In government:
All increases in data have led to increases in taxation.
All increases in taxation have led to decreases in liberty.
All decreases in liberty have led to calcification.
Now if you look at that series of statements it’s rather obvious that the same behavior of increasing certainty and rents is the normal human behavior that leads to exhaustion of an opportunity, whereas what preserves the value of capital structures is GENERATING OPPORTUNITY that can then be exploited.
At present, small companies generate opportnity, producing off book losses that are hidden in the economy. While large companies buy the R&D of those smaller companies and obtain the profits of them through preservation of the concentration of capital in a customer-access organization.
Source date (UTC): 2017-11-27 12:44:00 UTC
-
Q&a: Curt: Big Data?
Q&A: CURT: BIG DATA? —“It’s overrated.”—Herbert S Vogelsang Um. Pretty much. In Knowledge of Human Beings: I think that big data is a substitute for praxeology, because it is impolitic to speak praxeological under postmodernism – big data provides excuses for action without admitting that human behavior is predictable and stereotypical. In Economics: It does assist us in inventory management (efficiency) at the cost of increasing economic fragility (stored capital). There is a fairly low limit to what can be learned about people from big data and almost all of it is predictable. In Business: Most business uses of data serve to prevent mal-entrenchment of the bureaucracy (lessening innovators dilemma) Much business use of data tends to direct a business to certainty of revenue production rather than innovation, thereby maximizing short term and destroying the long term viability of the company (Sun, Microsoft, Apple, and now Google). Most marketing uses of data simply decrease the cost of advertising to those who aren’t interested. Big data does provide short term competitive advantage. In government: All increases in data have led to increases in taxation. All increases in taxation have led to decreases in liberty. All decreases in liberty have led to calcification. Now if you look at that series of statements it’s rather obvious that the same behavior of increasing certainty and rents is the normal human behavior that leads to exhaustion of an opportunity, whereas what preserves the value of capital structures is GENERATING OPPORTUNITY that can then be exploited. At present, small companies generate opportnity, producing off book losses that are hidden in the economy. While large companies buy the R&D of those smaller companies and obtain the profits of them through preservation of the concentration of capital in a customer-access organization. -
I appreciate the new tech. Really. But, a 1911 is an extension of my body. Why?
I appreciate the new tech. Really. But, a 1911 is an extension of my body. Why? I trained with it. It’s nothing but form and function. It’s a craftsman’s tool. It’s thin, points naturally, is long enough for sight picture, it’s ‘condition’ is visible. It’s single action – and always ‘hot’. It has a perfect trigger that can be tuned even more. It’s heavy enough to absorb the recoil of a fat, heavy, round. And makes it a big messy hole without passing thru the target or obstacles. My kick is this: |SERIES|: Fist > knife > pistol(single) > revolver > semi auto > smg >auto carbine > auto battle rifle > machine gun > heavy machine gun. In other words, we are always having the wrong argument: a pistol is a gun to get a gun, a duelling weapon, or an assassination weapon like the knife. And if you watch how we train 9mm, we train 9mm to mimic an SMG. The minimum small arm is a machine pistol with 30 rounds. So, why not just use an smg/machine pistol? -
I appreciate the new tech. Really. But, a 1911 is an extension of my body. Why?
I appreciate the new tech. Really. But, a 1911 is an extension of my body. Why? I trained with it. It’s nothing but form and function. It’s a craftsman’s tool. It’s thin, points naturally, is long enough for sight picture, it’s ‘condition’ is visible. It’s single action – and always ‘hot’. It has a perfect trigger that can be tuned even more. It’s heavy enough to absorb the recoil of a fat, heavy, round. And makes it a big messy hole without passing thru the target or obstacles.
My kick is this:
|SERIES|: Fist > knife > pistol(single) > revolver > semi auto > smg >auto carbine > auto battle rifle > machine gun > heavy machine gun.
In other words, we are always having the wrong argument: a pistol is a gun to get a gun, a duelling weapon, or an assassination weapon like the knife.
And if you watch how we train 9mm, we train 9mm to mimic an SMG.
The minimum small arm is a machine pistol with 30 rounds.
So, why not just use an smg/machine pistol?
Source date (UTC): 2017-11-27 11:14:00 UTC
-
I appreciate the new tech. Really. But, a 1911 is an extension of my body. Why?
I appreciate the new tech. Really. But, a 1911 is an extension of my body. Why? I trained with it. It’s nothing but form and function. It’s a craftsman’s tool. It’s thin, points naturally, is long enough for sight picture, it’s ‘condition’ is visible. It’s single action – and always ‘hot’. It has a perfect trigger that can be tuned even more. It’s heavy enough to absorb the recoil of a fat, heavy, round. And makes it a big messy hole without passing thru the target or obstacles. My kick is this: |SERIES|: Fist > knife > pistol(single) > revolver > semi auto > smg >auto carbine > auto battle rifle > machine gun > heavy machine gun. In other words, we are always having the wrong argument: a pistol is a gun to get a gun, a duelling weapon, or an assassination weapon like the knife. And if you watch how we train 9mm, we train 9mm to mimic an SMG. The minimum small arm is a machine pistol with 30 rounds. So, why not just use an smg/machine pistol? -
America: The Land Of Drugging Yourself.
If america is a ‘good’ culture, why then do we have illegal drug problems, why do we drug our children to keep them in school, why are 40% of women on drugs, why are opiates such a problem (and why is pain), and why are almost all our senior citizens drugged? 1) women (mothers, wives, girlfriends) serve as the human drug of preference and there is a shortage of their attention. 2) Americans are oppressively lonely because of the left’s destruction of the family. 3) Under-Socialization because of ‘diversity’ and ‘school’. 3) Weight from bad diets causes cumulative pain (slow death). 4) Lack of movement and exercise. if you are in the upper middle class or higher minority then it’s all well and good, because you aren’t fat, have lots of friends with shared values, are married, have a family, and get some exercise. Otherwise you ‘die slowly’ while ‘drugging’ yourself with entertainment (television etc), sedating foods, alcohol, drugs, and possessions. The fact that things feel good tells you nothing about whether they ARE in fact good. Many terribly bad things feel good. There are no shortcuts to fresh food, walking for an hour a day, quiet sleep, the security and mindfulness of family, the cheap and enduring entertainment of friends with shared values, and a sufficient nest egg so that you can tolerate a year or more of ‘being unproductive’ (unemployed). The problem is, that each of those demands (the purchase and preparation of fresh food, an hour of walking, 8 hours of solid sleep, a family, friends, and a nest egg, require a great deal of time, attention, shared values – and we have traded the time of women in the production of THOSE goods, for the redistribution of reproduction to the competitors and the dysgenic underclasses, the poverty of men in old age, and the ‘drugging’ of people to compensate for it. The value of increasing productivity was important during the era of transition from subsistence existence and limited mass production to consumer capitalism (consumption) and extraordinary mass production. But we have made that transition and the apparent ‘goods’ of the 19th century have been maximized (obviously) and there is no longer any value to increases in production or productivity. Thats an empirical statement given the demand for drugs in our civilization versus others. Continual culling of the lower classes through suppression of their reproduction, and increases in redistribution to remaining kin will restore the balance that was made possible by the rise of europeans in the ancient and modern worlds. I love my people. And BAD PEOPLE with GOOD INTENTIONS have caused the infantilization of our civilization’s classes most dependent upon ‘beneficial norms’. -
AMERICA: THE LAND OF DRUGGING YOURSELF. If america is a ‘good’ culture, why then
AMERICA: THE LAND OF DRUGGING YOURSELF.
If america is a ‘good’ culture, why then do we have illegal drug problems, why do we drug our children to keep them in school, why are 40% of women on drugs, why are opiates such a problem (and why is pain), and why are almost all our senior citizens drugged?
1) women (mothers, wives, girlfriends) serve as the human drug of preference and there is a shortage of their attention.
2) Americans are oppressively lonely because of the left’s destruction of the family.
3) Under-Socialization because of ‘diversity’ and ‘school’.
3) Weight from bad diets causes cumulative pain (slow death).
4) Lack of movement and exercise.
if you are in the upper middle class or higher minority then it’s all well and good, because you aren’t fat, have lots of friends with shared values, are married, have a family, and get some exercise.
Otherwise you ‘die slowly’ while ‘drugging’ yourself with entertainment (television etc), sedating foods, alcohol, drugs, and possessions.
The fact that things feel good tells you nothing about whether they ARE in fact good. Many terribly bad things feel good.
There are no shortcuts to fresh food, walking for an hour a day, quiet sleep, the security and mindfulness of family, the cheap and enduring entertainment of friends with shared values, and a sufficient nest egg so that you can tolerate a year or more of ‘being unproductive’ (unemployed).
The problem is, that each of those demands (the purchase and preparation of fresh food, an hour of walking, 8 hours of solid sleep, a family, friends, and a nest egg, require a great deal of time, attention, shared values – and we have traded the time of women in the production of THOSE goods, for the redistribution of reproduction to the competitors and the dysgenic underclasses, the poverty of men in old age, and the ‘drugging’ of people to compensate for it.
The value of increasing productivity was important during the era of transition from subsistence existence and limited mass production to consumer capitalism (consumption) and extraordinary mass production.
But we have made that transition and the apparent ‘goods’ of the 19th century have been maximized (obviously) and there is no longer any value to increases in production or productivity.
Thats an empirical statement given the demand for drugs in our civilization versus others.
Continual culling of the lower classes through suppression of their reproduction, and increases in redistribution to remaining kin will restore the balance that was made possible by the rise of europeans in the ancient and modern worlds.
I love my people. And BAD PEOPLE with GOOD INTENTIONS have caused the infantilization of our civilization’s classes most dependent upon ‘beneficial norms’.
Source date (UTC): 2017-11-26 13:19:00 UTC
-
America: The Land Of Drugging Yourself.
If america is a ‘good’ culture, why then do we have illegal drug problems, why do we drug our children to keep them in school, why are 40% of women on drugs, why are opiates such a problem (and why is pain), and why are almost all our senior citizens drugged? 1) women (mothers, wives, girlfriends) serve as the human drug of preference and there is a shortage of their attention. 2) Americans are oppressively lonely because of the left’s destruction of the family. 3) Under-Socialization because of ‘diversity’ and ‘school’. 3) Weight from bad diets causes cumulative pain (slow death). 4) Lack of movement and exercise. if you are in the upper middle class or higher minority then it’s all well and good, because you aren’t fat, have lots of friends with shared values, are married, have a family, and get some exercise. Otherwise you ‘die slowly’ while ‘drugging’ yourself with entertainment (television etc), sedating foods, alcohol, drugs, and possessions. The fact that things feel good tells you nothing about whether they ARE in fact good. Many terribly bad things feel good. There are no shortcuts to fresh food, walking for an hour a day, quiet sleep, the security and mindfulness of family, the cheap and enduring entertainment of friends with shared values, and a sufficient nest egg so that you can tolerate a year or more of ‘being unproductive’ (unemployed). The problem is, that each of those demands (the purchase and preparation of fresh food, an hour of walking, 8 hours of solid sleep, a family, friends, and a nest egg, require a great deal of time, attention, shared values – and we have traded the time of women in the production of THOSE goods, for the redistribution of reproduction to the competitors and the dysgenic underclasses, the poverty of men in old age, and the ‘drugging’ of people to compensate for it. The value of increasing productivity was important during the era of transition from subsistence existence and limited mass production to consumer capitalism (consumption) and extraordinary mass production. But we have made that transition and the apparent ‘goods’ of the 19th century have been maximized (obviously) and there is no longer any value to increases in production or productivity. Thats an empirical statement given the demand for drugs in our civilization versus others. Continual culling of the lower classes through suppression of their reproduction, and increases in redistribution to remaining kin will restore the balance that was made possible by the rise of europeans in the ancient and modern worlds. I love my people. And BAD PEOPLE with GOOD INTENTIONS have caused the infantilization of our civilization’s classes most dependent upon ‘beneficial norms’.