Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • Thought At Post Human Scale

    THE BASICS OF THOUGHT AT POST-HUMAN SCALE Ideal types, and idealism (which I criticize almost as frequently as fictionalism), are products of the problems at human scale: antiquity and pre-modernity. We can see the enlightenment as an attempt to successfully transition from measurements at human scale, within the realm of human perception, to the measurements beyond human scale, and therefore beyond our perception. It is not surprising that our conventional (normative) thinking and language lag our instruments of measurement both physical (mechanical) and mental (conceptual). Darwin is quite old technology by now but much of the world does not understand that evolution is directionless except in favor of complexity for both the exploitation of niches and the retention of prior techniques (genes) so that they can re-emerge if needed. So this is why I insist on operational definitions on a spectrum so that people cannot fall into the trap of comparing concepts that rely on different production cycles (durations) involving different numbers of people (complexity and scale). Unfortunately Hayekian Triangles are a bit much for ordinary man to cope with, and IS/LM(Keynesian) and classical supply and demand curves only a bit less so. But we can start with the simple illustration that no concept in isolation informs us to its limits. Ergo, the golden rule is useless without the silver rule. This principle of ,via-positiva vs via-negative (western progressive version of the eastern static idea of ying vs yang) provides us with convergence: that which survives both meaning (possibility) and criticism (limits). Without limits, we cannot test our meaning. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Differences: Epistemology and Human Reason

    EPISTEMOLOGY AND HUMAN REASON –“the question for me is what role does epistemology play in the desire for cooperation over reason?”—- To frame this question a bit better: Epistemology refers to that discipline in which we attempt to understand the means by which we eliminate ignorance, error, bias and deceit, and therefore produce what we call knowledge: that which improves our agency (ability to act). There is however only one method of obtaining knowledge: 0) investigation (observation) 1) experience (perception) 2) free association (identity) 3) wayfinding (hypothesis) (or possibility) 4) criticism (theory) 5) survival in the market for its use (law) 6) integration (adoption into ‘metaphysical’ assumptions) It doesn’t matter whether we are talking about a scientific theory, an engineering problem, a method of production, taking a product to market, the affect of policy on capital at different points in time, or the exploration of various mathematical relations at increasingly complex causal densities. Most of our work has been in epistemology has been in the identification of methods of criticism (measurement) both instrumental(tools) and mental (logical). Most of my work has been in formalizing this process by completing the program that the philosophers of science in the 20th century failed to. Humans don’t practice epistemology. Humans simply do the only thing possible: stumble upon an idea through free association, and then incrementally remove their ignorance until it fails, or … is at least sufficient to obtain what it is that they seek. Now to answer this question … –“the question for me is what role does epistemology play in the desire for cooperation over reason?”—- I am not sure what you are asking. My understanding is that people act rationally with the information available given their agency (abilities), the demand, risk and reward before them. GIven that it is very hard to circumvent punishment by other humans for free riding, parasitism, predation, and extermination – and given the extraordinary returns on cooperation at least over time, what we see is that unless there is a windfall available (you gain enough that no future cooperation can do better than the act of immorality) people tend to favor cooperation in almost all circumstances. This does not apply for people who have been subject to trauma , the victims of genetic defect, developmental disorders, or brain damage. And this looks like ‘the evil 3%’ of the ‘white’ population. But as a general rule, excepting outliers, then yes.

  • Differences: Epistemology and Human Reason

    EPISTEMOLOGY AND HUMAN REASON –“the question for me is what role does epistemology play in the desire for cooperation over reason?”—- To frame this question a bit better: Epistemology refers to that discipline in which we attempt to understand the means by which we eliminate ignorance, error, bias and deceit, and therefore produce what we call knowledge: that which improves our agency (ability to act). There is however only one method of obtaining knowledge: 0) investigation (observation) 1) experience (perception) 2) free association (identity) 3) wayfinding (hypothesis) (or possibility) 4) criticism (theory) 5) survival in the market for its use (law) 6) integration (adoption into ‘metaphysical’ assumptions) It doesn’t matter whether we are talking about a scientific theory, an engineering problem, a method of production, taking a product to market, the affect of policy on capital at different points in time, or the exploration of various mathematical relations at increasingly complex causal densities. Most of our work has been in epistemology has been in the identification of methods of criticism (measurement) both instrumental(tools) and mental (logical). Most of my work has been in formalizing this process by completing the program that the philosophers of science in the 20th century failed to. Humans don’t practice epistemology. Humans simply do the only thing possible: stumble upon an idea through free association, and then incrementally remove their ignorance until it fails, or … is at least sufficient to obtain what it is that they seek. Now to answer this question … –“the question for me is what role does epistemology play in the desire for cooperation over reason?”—- I am not sure what you are asking. My understanding is that people act rationally with the information available given their agency (abilities), the demand, risk and reward before them. GIven that it is very hard to circumvent punishment by other humans for free riding, parasitism, predation, and extermination – and given the extraordinary returns on cooperation at least over time, what we see is that unless there is a windfall available (you gain enough that no future cooperation can do better than the act of immorality) people tend to favor cooperation in almost all circumstances. This does not apply for people who have been subject to trauma , the victims of genetic defect, developmental disorders, or brain damage. And this looks like ‘the evil 3%’ of the ‘white’ population. But as a general rule, excepting outliers, then yes.

  • Why Did We Lose North Africa?

    Why did we lose North Africa? North Africa (Carthage) Colonized by Phoenicians, who, as I understand it, (maybe) were South-Caucasian (South East Black Sea) > Iranian > Semitic > ~Bahrain? Yemen? (jews/yemeni origin?) In other words, they were cousins of then-North africans (theselves of the Iranian distribution) Carthage, like Sicily, and Crete before it, was in an exceptionally good trading position and far from the high costs of defense in the fertile crescent. Carthage was an advanced civilization superior to Rome, and culturally similar to what we imagine in greece. If Athens and Sparta were analogous to London and Germany, then Carthage was analogous to Paris. Due to trade conflicts (that were probably unnecessary), Rome destroyed Carthage (justifiably in my opinion), weakening north Africa west of the Nile. (exaggeration maybe). The primary damage to rome was the combination of population dilution (over-immigration), inadequate institutions for the scale (failure to develop fiat money in particular), the failure to convert from a slave to a serf and to freemen economy (largely again because an inability to develop soft money), the destruction of celtic civilization resulting in the german invasions, and therefore an inability to resist the germanic hordes. However the substantial crisis (in my view) was the Justinian Plague (the first visitation of the plague upon europe). The second was the conquest by Constantine. And the final blow was the exhaustion of the byzantines against the Persians that weakened the ancient civilizations such that the Turks (who had been kicked out of northern china), and the Arabs (who were no different from the Germans in effect) could occupy and incrementally destroy the advanced civilizations, from which neither Persia, Byzantium, The Levant, and North Africa can recover. And from which the peoples of the steppe may never progress. In my view the semites, both Jewish and Arab are perhaps an innovation upon earlier versions of man simply by virtue of aggression. WHile the jews adopted the feminine strategy, the arabs adopted the masculine, and these two extremes seem to be extremely effective against the moderate peoples of China/Japan/Korea/India, and the north iranians (persians), and the north (europeans of all delineation). We will, within a century, decode the genes for low IQ and high aggression, but hopefully we will domesticate (by force) the semitic peoples before either extreme is able to do further damage to mankind.

  • Why Did We Lose North Africa?

    Why did we lose North Africa? North Africa (Carthage) Colonized by Phoenicians, who, as I understand it, (maybe) were South-Caucasian (South East Black Sea) > Iranian > Semitic > ~Bahrain? Yemen? (jews/yemeni origin?) In other words, they were cousins of then-North africans (theselves of the Iranian distribution) Carthage, like Sicily, and Crete before it, was in an exceptionally good trading position and far from the high costs of defense in the fertile crescent. Carthage was an advanced civilization superior to Rome, and culturally similar to what we imagine in greece. If Athens and Sparta were analogous to London and Germany, then Carthage was analogous to Paris. Due to trade conflicts (that were probably unnecessary), Rome destroyed Carthage (justifiably in my opinion), weakening north Africa west of the Nile. (exaggeration maybe). The primary damage to rome was the combination of population dilution (over-immigration), inadequate institutions for the scale (failure to develop fiat money in particular), the failure to convert from a slave to a serf and to freemen economy (largely again because an inability to develop soft money), the destruction of celtic civilization resulting in the german invasions, and therefore an inability to resist the germanic hordes. However the substantial crisis (in my view) was the Justinian Plague (the first visitation of the plague upon europe). The second was the conquest by Constantine. And the final blow was the exhaustion of the byzantines against the Persians that weakened the ancient civilizations such that the Turks (who had been kicked out of northern china), and the Arabs (who were no different from the Germans in effect) could occupy and incrementally destroy the advanced civilizations, from which neither Persia, Byzantium, The Levant, and North Africa can recover. And from which the peoples of the steppe may never progress. In my view the semites, both Jewish and Arab are perhaps an innovation upon earlier versions of man simply by virtue of aggression. WHile the jews adopted the feminine strategy, the arabs adopted the masculine, and these two extremes seem to be extremely effective against the moderate peoples of China/Japan/Korea/India, and the north iranians (persians), and the north (europeans of all delineation). We will, within a century, decode the genes for low IQ and high aggression, but hopefully we will domesticate (by force) the semitic peoples before either extreme is able to do further damage to mankind.

  • The Sci Fi Take on Propertarianism: A Reformation of Sci Fi and AI.

    Apr 10, 2017 8:48am THE SCI-FI TAKE ON PROPERTARIANISM: A REFORMATION OF SCI-FI? —“If we were able to produce neural networks that were built using the frame and parameters of propertarianism (natural law) to filter information, merged with humans, this, in all of it’s glorified science fiction, could produce meta-agency. Basically having a self-learning program implanted into humans that help filter information in order to produce agency. Sounds pretty cool! This kind of agent based programming is something another follower of yours showed interest in.”— A Friend Nit – neural networks are exceptional at turning stimuli into symbols. I am not sure that they are a very good solution to any problems once we possess symbols. Nature build on what she had, but once you have symbols the neural network model becomes an inhibitor not useful search function. I suppose I should explain that at some point, but it’s just what it is. Neural networks are very stable at preserving ‘general relations’ amidst fragmentary damage but they are subject to deformation (dilution), and become very expensive when you are trying to store reconstructable and traceable data. symbolic data and search algorithms defeat neural networks because the information density of symbols sort of like the information density of a book vs a memory of reading or writing a book, is much higher and more stable. But the ideas that you could: 1) create a propertarian ‘conscience’ for any AI. 2) create a propertarian ‘conscience and advisor’ with which to augment a human being. Are pretty fascinating concepts to work with in science fiction. In fact, I think this is what a ‘Runcible’ ( individual education computer) should do for you. REVISIONIST SCIENCE FICTION Now, instead of what has been written in the past, given that it is possible to create a machine MORE MORAL than man, how would that change science fiction?

  • The Sci Fi Take on Propertarianism: A Reformation of Sci Fi and AI.

    Apr 10, 2017 8:48am THE SCI-FI TAKE ON PROPERTARIANISM: A REFORMATION OF SCI-FI? —“If we were able to produce neural networks that were built using the frame and parameters of propertarianism (natural law) to filter information, merged with humans, this, in all of it’s glorified science fiction, could produce meta-agency. Basically having a self-learning program implanted into humans that help filter information in order to produce agency. Sounds pretty cool! This kind of agent based programming is something another follower of yours showed interest in.”— A Friend Nit – neural networks are exceptional at turning stimuli into symbols. I am not sure that they are a very good solution to any problems once we possess symbols. Nature build on what she had, but once you have symbols the neural network model becomes an inhibitor not useful search function. I suppose I should explain that at some point, but it’s just what it is. Neural networks are very stable at preserving ‘general relations’ amidst fragmentary damage but they are subject to deformation (dilution), and become very expensive when you are trying to store reconstructable and traceable data. symbolic data and search algorithms defeat neural networks because the information density of symbols sort of like the information density of a book vs a memory of reading or writing a book, is much higher and more stable. But the ideas that you could: 1) create a propertarian ‘conscience’ for any AI. 2) create a propertarian ‘conscience and advisor’ with which to augment a human being. Are pretty fascinating concepts to work with in science fiction. In fact, I think this is what a ‘Runcible’ ( individual education computer) should do for you. REVISIONIST SCIENCE FICTION Now, instead of what has been written in the past, given that it is possible to create a machine MORE MORAL than man, how would that change science fiction?

  • Pursuit of Happiness In Social Orders

    HAPPINESS IN SOCIAL ORDERS Humans in general, are generally happy if they are working to produce gains, not to forestall losses. It does not take a great deal of income to do that. Most of what we spend is on status signaling to ourselves and others. Food, clothing, shelter, heat, water, electricity, appliances, air conditioning, children, family, friends. But we need be insulated from ‘the evil people’ who are unsatisfied with such – so we pay heavily to keep away from them. We pay even more heavily to be with people who are better than us, that we can learn from, and gain from the opportunities of proximity. If you truncate your lower classes, occupy your mischievous young males with physical labor in support of the commons, occupy your young women with children, and invest heavily in commons, most of us will be able to live very well, and the few that make our living-well possible will live far above us in signals – as they should. We have economics all wrong. We need multiple economies both martial(slave), public works (underclass), syndicalism(labor), and capitalism( middle, upper middle, and upper) And we do not need this hamster wheel of continuous consumption. We need only eradicate immigration except for the very best of the upper classes, eradicate through constraint on reproduction the lower classes, and eradicate the ability for non-kin to compete with us for control over the production of commons, and the status signals that are the reward for assisting in the production of those commons. Unfortunately we have not learned to constrain the impulses of women to satisfy the need to give (free endorphins for redistributing the production of others), and we have not learned to constrain the impulses of all (as did the communists) to satisfy the need to feel ‘above’ someone, or that they are not the low rung on the ladder, (free endorphins for false status signals), or the need to demonstrate status through conspicuous consumption (endorphins for possessing that which others do not), or the need to virtue signal (free endorphins for empty talk or gossip). Other societies, including ours, in much of our history, have suppressed unearned signals as a form of theft. It seems like this more than anything, combined with democracy that let it loose, has been the reason we are not happy. The hamster wheel of consumption is merely selling us the curse of Sisyphus by the promise of a utopia, the same way a drug dealer sells drugs, a fast food chain sells sugars and fats, a dietary supplement manufacturer sells ‘vitamins’ an advertiser sells status, a politician sells socialism or communism, or priest and his prophet sells life after death or some number of virgins. They’re all lies. Happiness is simple. Working to produce gains, not to forestall losses. And we can only forestall losses if we have the inventory that is sufficient to live off our gains.

  • Pursuit of Happiness In Social Orders

    HAPPINESS IN SOCIAL ORDERS Humans in general, are generally happy if they are working to produce gains, not to forestall losses. It does not take a great deal of income to do that. Most of what we spend is on status signaling to ourselves and others. Food, clothing, shelter, heat, water, electricity, appliances, air conditioning, children, family, friends. But we need be insulated from ‘the evil people’ who are unsatisfied with such – so we pay heavily to keep away from them. We pay even more heavily to be with people who are better than us, that we can learn from, and gain from the opportunities of proximity. If you truncate your lower classes, occupy your mischievous young males with physical labor in support of the commons, occupy your young women with children, and invest heavily in commons, most of us will be able to live very well, and the few that make our living-well possible will live far above us in signals – as they should. We have economics all wrong. We need multiple economies both martial(slave), public works (underclass), syndicalism(labor), and capitalism( middle, upper middle, and upper) And we do not need this hamster wheel of continuous consumption. We need only eradicate immigration except for the very best of the upper classes, eradicate through constraint on reproduction the lower classes, and eradicate the ability for non-kin to compete with us for control over the production of commons, and the status signals that are the reward for assisting in the production of those commons. Unfortunately we have not learned to constrain the impulses of women to satisfy the need to give (free endorphins for redistributing the production of others), and we have not learned to constrain the impulses of all (as did the communists) to satisfy the need to feel ‘above’ someone, or that they are not the low rung on the ladder, (free endorphins for false status signals), or the need to demonstrate status through conspicuous consumption (endorphins for possessing that which others do not), or the need to virtue signal (free endorphins for empty talk or gossip). Other societies, including ours, in much of our history, have suppressed unearned signals as a form of theft. It seems like this more than anything, combined with democracy that let it loose, has been the reason we are not happy. The hamster wheel of consumption is merely selling us the curse of Sisyphus by the promise of a utopia, the same way a drug dealer sells drugs, a fast food chain sells sugars and fats, a dietary supplement manufacturer sells ‘vitamins’ an advertiser sells status, a politician sells socialism or communism, or priest and his prophet sells life after death or some number of virgins. They’re all lies. Happiness is simple. Working to produce gains, not to forestall losses. And we can only forestall losses if we have the inventory that is sufficient to live off our gains.

  • It’s A Function of the Right Place At The Right Time

    (to others) I would say that I was able to complete the program – the completion of the scientific enlightenment because I was lucky enough to live in an era of software programming, and lucky enough to understand how the philosophers of the nineteenth and twentieth century failed, because of that ‘odd’ exposure. If I had to say who was most influential it would be popper’s inability to complete his program, mises error in miscasting praxeology, hoppe’s success in using property as a unit of commensurability despite the error in his dependence upon kantian rationalism; and the observation that hayek came very close in his work on the law, but for his reliance ( like so many others) upon is perception of psychology rather than the computability and cognitive science that we have today. But that I was most able to articulate the argument clearly by combining those failures with the near successes of Hilbert,Brouwer, Bridgman in other fields. I think aside from (a) programming, (b) we have sufficient information about the failings of mathematics in modeling (Not describing) economic phenomenon, (c) we have exceptional information on cognitive science and genetics (d) we have enough evidence of voting patterns under democracy, and (e) it is finally possible because of the internet to access information rapidly enough that if one works very hard it is possible to master multiple fields in one human lifetime. So my ability to complete the program and provide the Wilsonian Synthesis ( solve the unification of science, biology, philosophy, ethics, law, economics, and politics,) was due largely to existing at the right point in time, with so many men who ca me so close just one or two or three generations before me. Unfortunately, this is going to be one of those issues just like reason (aristotle) , rationalism (Descartes) and epiricism (Bacon, locke smith hume, darwin, menger, maxwell, spencer etc ) that is going to be as unpleasant to adapt to.