Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • ANALYTIC VS CONTINENTAL AND ABRAHAMIC IN HISTORICAL CONTEXT Analytic philosophy

    ANALYTIC VS CONTINENTAL AND ABRAHAMIC IN HISTORICAL CONTEXT

    Analytic philosophy struggles to speak (testify) in measurements each of which is testable. An attempt to limit error and deceit. Because analytic philosophy rose out of the anglo system (empirical) which arose out of the anglo legal (bacon).

    The consequence is that by deflation (opposite of the continental method) truth can be tested by the ‘market’ for those with a wide set of norms, traditions, and values.

    The advantage (and purpose) of the continental (and abrahamic) models, is to conflate rather than deflate measurements with values such that one must submit to sympathy (consent to the values) in order to test the measure (if possible).

    In other words, the purpose of the analytic model is deflationary to prevent the very suggestion and monopoly of values that continental tradition seeks to enforce, and to prevent the suggestion and monopoly of facts and values that religions seek to enforce.

    In other words, the analytic tradition seeks to insulate us from the sympathetic coercion of the continental program of philosophy, and the authoritarian deception of the abrahamic program of philosophy.

    The problem then is the same as faced by the ancients. One must retain correspondence and coherence between one’s method of pedagogy(group evolutionary strategy) and method of law (dispute resolution). The roman’s mistake was in tolerating the introduction of deception into the empire in the jewish, christian, and islamic forms. As well as tolerating the retention of Greek idealism. They had solved the problem of roman law, stoic ritual and virtue, and public religion and festival.

    The germans have conflated religion and philosophy while preserving the deflation of law – although not as strongly as the common law prior to Napoleon.

    And I have learned a great deal from the difference between the anglo method and the german and the jewish.

    The more deflation the more innovation and adaptation and trust. The problem is, one must increase the prosecution of recidivism in one’s religion and education along with every increase in deflation of philosophy and law.

    This explains most of history really as a battle between underclass deceit and conflation against the aristocracy and aristocratic truth and deflation against the underclass.

    Or more simply, aristocratic eugenics vs underclass dysgenics.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-04 19:19:00 UTC

  • METAPHYSICS, SCIENCE, PHILOSOPHY ? I my view the purpose of science is to constr

    METAPHYSICS, SCIENCE, PHILOSOPHY ?

    I my view the purpose of science is to construct measurements where we provide a means of sensing the otherwise unsensable such that we render it commensurable and judgeable. So Propertarianism is a method of measurement, where man is used as the unit of measure. In other words, perfect commensurably provided by the limits of human action within each dimension of actionable reality.

    Now given that we are marginally indifferent in our senses, we can then testify to one another in each of those dimensions (testimonially) and test one another’s statements for (as Joel says ) both correspondence and coherence. So it’s just very hard to construct a falsehood ‘testimonially’ that we cannot sense. Since everything is reduced to that which we can commensurably (marginally indifferently) sense.

    So I view science as the art of constructing measurements in logical and physical forms. I view philosophy as the means of decidability within a domain. I view truth as the means of decidability across domains, or independent of domain.

    So whether you want to take those three things and represent them as a triangle, or a hierarchy, I guess I have taken the position that there is a hierarchy, and it is Time > Life > Necessity of Action > Truth > Philosophy > Science. But I might be wrong about that relationship. I am almost certain I am wrong. But I can think about it a bit.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-04 18:58:00 UTC

  • OUR METAPHYSICS by Bill Joslin Metaphysics and claims of metaphysical privilege

    OUR METAPHYSICS

    by Bill Joslin

    Metaphysics and claims of metaphysical privilege (like platonists) I find aggravating.

    Building from the simplistic trivium method – metaphysics distills down to grammar and dataset – the answer to what (object) when (what time), who (what person), where (what place)… The constellation of facts under-girding the claim.

    But but metaphysics is about HOW things (whats) exists.

    Now fast forward to Joel ‘s “operationalizing Kant”, where by observation cohere according to conceptual frames (Kant’s categories). Operationalism ensures existential coherence between the frame and observation – ensures the facts are reported accurately in relation to the frame. (Reporting corresponds to the coherence with observation).

    This solves, or rather closes the door, to one of the most sophisticated means of deception ever – fucking around with grammar to predetermine logical outputs and defining grammar by a presupposed logic. It bridges a little notice but crucial gap between metaphysics and epistemology… Gunna upset some thomistic Aristotelians cause they can’t lean on their metaphysical claims anymore… But I suspect they will shout ‘niave realist” (which they seem to not understand) or “reductionary materialism” from atop of their ivory ruins, Ignoring (or not comprehending) that the above does not presume or presuppose materialism, reduction or realism – only relational consistency to any type of metaphysical presumptions and claims. In doing so only some metaphysical presumptions and clams can survive (ones which retain coherence from observation through frame to claim) which theirs don’t.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-04 18:37:00 UTC

  • WHY DID PEOPLE RESIST GAY MARRIAGE? I think people fought against homosexuality

    WHY DID PEOPLE RESIST GAY MARRIAGE?

    I think people fought against homosexuality for the following reasons:

    (a) marriage in public prohibits interference which causes high rates of male violence, often resulting in death, the consequences of which export vast cascading costs onto the polity – trust being one of the most important.

    (b) marriage in public asks warranty of non-interference in the marriage and family as a means of preventing the moral hazard of the public carrying the cost of broken families.

    (c) Homosexuality invokes a disgust response in many (very many) people, not the least of which because we do not want to increase ‘marginal cases’.

    (d) homosexuality is of negative evolutionary, familial, value other than labor, and so why does the public need to insure it by means of marriage?

    (e) Without offspring they could signal hyperconsumption more easily, and with two incomes they could signal hyperconsumption more easily

    (f) homosexuals by hyperconsumption, sexual signaling, promiscuity, have demonstrated precisely the public behaviors that we have spent thousands of years removing from the public – precisely so that we could limit risk of violating the marriage and family as means of limiting the export of costs.

    (g) It certainly appears that given all of us contain masculine and feminine traits, and that while in-utero homosexuality is merely a birth defect, various forms of mental illness can result from developmental issues such as bulimia, anorexia, sexual identity, issues. In other words, ‘gender preference’ appears to be, like anorexia and bulimia, a developmental disorder easily corrected by constant exposure to norms. (and therefore without loss of genetic persistence,)

    (h) Genetically (and economically) non-reproducing people who are capable of productivity and self financing of reproduction are dead weight on civilization.

    So externalities are the cause of marriage. homoxexuality does not require the institution of marriage: a corporation for the pooling of assets by which intergenerational reproduction, ‘financing’ and ‘insurance’ are provided.

    Instead homoseuality requires only the formation of a partnership, and universal power of attorney. This is the only legal content of the marriage.

    The question remains whether homosexuals can produced offspring in equal or not worse quality to hterosexuals and the money is against them. Not because some cannot. But because there are too many who cannot.

    So we are running an experiment. I have no idea how it will play out.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-04 10:00:00 UTC

  • WHAT IS THE PLAN TO IMPLEMENT ‘REVOLUTION’? (important) The fact is that as a ph

    WHAT IS THE PLAN TO IMPLEMENT ‘REVOLUTION’?

    (important)

    The fact is that as a philosopher I am not a ‘problem’. But the minute I start talking about operations then I become ‘a problem’. So I will just say that we don’t talk about fight club outside of fight club. That said, if we are successful (meaning me and the other thinkers around me, and the other leadership around us, and the extended movement beyond them), then both the threat will be real enough, and the solution possible enough, and the returns for the labor, working, middle, and upper middle class so substantial, that the ‘talking’ classes will have no choice. Not that they will not fight it. But that they will not be able to win. In the end, I am fairly certain that from the set of available choices I know the outcome that will result out of self interest by the government and the military. We will end up burning the financial sector, the advertising sector, the media, entertainment sector, and the academy, on a pyre of economic and legal disenfranchisement that it will be remembered as an economic version of the french revolution. And hopefully with the same durability in memory for all of history.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-04 09:01:00 UTC

  • PROPERTARIANISM AND TESTIMONIALISM: OPERATIONALIZING KANT (extremely important)

    PROPERTARIANISM AND TESTIMONIALISM: OPERATIONALIZING KANT

    (extremely important)

    by Joel Davis

    Kant’s epistemology can be broken down as a solution to the loss of a coherently functional conceptualization of our experience necessitated by adopting the extreme skepticism which emerges from Hume’s pure empiricism.

    Hume got so deep into empiricism that he rendered causality itself unknowable (as we merely sense variance over time, and impose the unfalsifiable concept of causal relations onto variance), Kant recognized the problem raised by Hume as pertaining to more than merely causality, but in fact to the concept of relative coherence itself.. On what basis can we empirically verify that the “thing-in-itself” is coherent? Kant then correctly realized that comprehensible experience can only emerge from conceptual coherence, thus necessitating the imposition of concepts like causality, the laws of logic and mathematics, and relative temporality and spatiality.

    Therefore, to Kant, we can not verify whether reality (the ‘thing-in-itself’) is coherent as we can’t perceive causal, logical, mathematical, temporal or spatial incoherence, thus we would impose coherence onto it to experience it anyway. However, this does not devalue rationality or empiricism, it merely articulates the function of experience – the categorization of perceived variance functions relative to conceptual/ideal definition (what Curt Doolittle describes as categorical consistency and scope consistency if done commensurably).

    Kant of course took hundreds of pages to say what I just said in a couple paragraphs, why? Because I think operationally.

    The best concept of ‘the truth’ we can generate emerges from operationalizing conceptual coherence by discovering functionally relative correspondence via the commensurable definition of experiential variance and convergence.

    That commensurablity emerges from measuring the temporal variance of sensory phenomena relative to abstract limits (what Curt Doolittle calls existential consistency).

    I also hold that just as Curt Doolittle’s epistemology operationalizes Kant’s epistemology as a functional measurement of thinking and speaking in maximum coherence (Testimonialism), Curt Doolittle’s ‘Natural Law of Reciprocity’ operationalizes Kant’s categorical imperative as a functional measurement of interpersonal relations. But, that piece of writing that will have to wait for when I have the time.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-04 07:26:00 UTC

  • Yes we are smart. Yes we are creative. But what makes us different is that we ar

    Yes we are smart. Yes we are creative. But what makes us different is that we are trustworthy. We are trustworthy either by nature(genetics) or training or both. It is increasingly obvious that it is BOTH. This is why other peoples cannot duplicate the western model. Our trust is a high tax. No other people will pay this tax other than perhaps the Japanese. Why: homogeneity.

    Once you figure it out you realize how much lying is going on under cosmopolitanism. Once we end financial parasitism our ability to exercise our creativity and intelligence and trust will multiply once again. Once we eliminate centralization of the state, our creativity and intelligence will multiply once again.

    Once we are no longer preyed upon our numbers will increase and we will multiply again.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-04 06:37:00 UTC

  • Poverty and the brain. Hard to judge cause. stress effects yes. but poverty is t

    Poverty and the brain.

    Hard to judge cause. stress effects yes. but poverty is the norm and the question is why are so many people not poor? Intelligence .7, and industriousness .4+ and conscientiousness .4. Prosperity in modernity requires a combination of personality traits of which intelligence is but one. And if any of those traits is inadequate the person cannot succeed in a market economy requiring the service of the needs of others FIRST in order to serve the needs of themselves SECOND. Worse, the cost of educating people at each std deviation of intelligence is dramatically higher, and if accompanied by shortages of necessary personality traits, then it only increases. If we then account for different rates of maturity based on the geography of ethnic origin necessary to fight infant mortality, we run into extremely high costs per individual with extremely low returns, and increasing chances of failure. The uncomfortable truth that we have learned over the past twenty years, is that the prosperity of any people is largely due, not to its smartest, but to the decrease in the population of the underclasses and the extraordinary burden they place on societies. The bottom is a drag on the rest so severe that most gorps of people in non-hostile climates cannot escape it.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-03 15:28:00 UTC

  • MATHEMATICAL PLATONISM IN THE BROADER INTELLECTUAL CONTEXT, AND THE CURRENT STAT

    MATHEMATICAL PLATONISM IN THE BROADER INTELLECTUAL CONTEXT, AND THE CURRENT STATE OF DEVELOPMENT IN MATHEMATICS (the study of measurement using constant relations via positional naming)

    (continuing discussion)

    Converting statements of mathematical platonism:

    If we say: “Can we say a subset…?” rather than “All is/are…” we eliminate a great deal of mathematical platonism, that requires us to use terminological special pleading.

    This eliminates the cultism (fictionalism) of mathematical platonism and ensures that the speaker knows of what he speaks, rather than simply performing operations he does not understand, but is still capable of constructing proofs of possibility.

    In other words, there is a difference between an idiot savant who masters pattern recognition and the individual who explains why the patterns can exist in the first place.

    As the intuitionists discovered, (and authors of proof software have taken advantage of), a proof must be falsified, and the two dimensions of doing so are via negativa (application tests), and via positiva (construction from operations)

    Unfortunately it seems that Wolfram is trying to cast operationalism as a separate science, rather than restoring mathematics to operations AND deductions, and it seems theoreticians are still describing symmetries (lie groups), it appears we are stuck with fictionalisms in each sub discipline rather than the rather obvious: that by free association we can either identify or search for patterns, and by a competition between construction and deduction we can test them, in any number of dimensions. And that our topography is largely little more than puzzles, while the problem of N-dimensional permutations producing consistent intermediary symmetries whose change in state is measurable, and lends prediction to heretofore unimaginable outcomes of n-dimensional high causal density is the holy grail of mathematics at which point we will be able to produce semantic intelligences rather than mere computations and algorithms.

    This is a perhaps more articulate explanation of the pseudoscience and pseudo-rationalism of the 20th (and now 21st century) that Hayek chastened us would be remembered in history as a second age of ‘mysticism’.

    Unfortunately, the great wars interfered wth the second enlightenment and the second industrial revolution, and gave the common man economic and political influence by which to distribute that new mysticism (Boaz/marx/freud/cantor/frankfurt school/postmodernism) when poincare, hayek, popper, brouwer, bridgman, and mises all failed to complete the operational revolution.

    (I’m doing my best to pick up the pieces.)

    Cheers.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-03 10:03:00 UTC

  • TRUTH: OUR 4000 YEAR TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANTAGE Truth. It is our civilization’s pri

    TRUTH: OUR 4000 YEAR TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANTAGE

    Truth. It is our civilization’s primary technological advantage and one that none other can duplicate – assuming we preserve our separatism.

    The lesson of history is that Truth cannot survive conflation. Whether in meaning, in disciplines, in institutions, or in Populations.

    Ergo, the choice is truth and paganism, truth and specialization, truth and markets, truth and separatism.

    And that is not something that I would have expected when I started out on my journey.

    Ely Harman / Eli Harman

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-02 18:09:00 UTC