Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • by Joel Davis and Curt Doolittle As I understand it, adherents to belief in Plat

    by Joel Davis and Curt Doolittle

    As I understand it, adherents to belief in Platonic Forms believe they literally exist, in some form or another, as if there’s some extra portion of reality beyond verifiable observation in which they exist.

    [ Moreover they are unable to articulate their ideas by reference to existential reality, such as when we refer to the invisible forces of the universe, then to the constant relations between them; or when we refer to a unicorn as a mythical character consisting of a conflation of horse, eagle, and antlers; or when we say that the numbers refer to positional names. ]

    I see Empiricism as a practical method – it gives us a process of verification and testing to follow which we can demonstrate via its’ success at informing successfully predictive conceptions of the operation of the reality which we mutually observe.

    I don’t believe empiricism describes some truth about the universe, I don’t claim our mutually verifiable observations are necessarily objective truth, I merely claim that we seem to have psychological motivations to pursue/avoid specific consequences from our interaction with the sensation of our mutually verifiable observations, and that methods which enable us to conceptualize it with less ignorance, error, and bias improve our capacity for developing successful strategies in pursuing consequences we desire.

    So in this sense, when discussing the “reality” of our mutually verifiable observations, empiricism has demonstrated it’s superior capacity to extract useful “truth” from our perception, whereas platonic forms have no verifiable basis in observations, they can have no observable source but imagination, so essentially they’re just people guessing, and even if they are correct, they would be correct by accident.

    I don’t find it ridiculous for someone to make a conceptual claim about my experience, then demonstrate the success of the concept in predicting my observations of transformations of states.

    But, I do find it ridiculous when people attempt to pass off our imaginary constructs as “truth” without demonstrated evidence. Why?

    Because…

    0) imaginary constructs may in some senses be testable for internal consistency.

    1) And in some cases, one might demonstrate external correspondence.

    But…

    2) One simply demonstrates a lack of understanding of CAUSALITY.

    3) And lacking observability, one cannot testify to CAUSALITY.

    4) Ergo we can convey MEANING between constant relations by speaking platonically, just as we convey MEANING between inconstant relations by literature. But we cannot convey causality, and therefore cannot warranty causality, and as we are unable to warranty causality, we are unable to warranty to the truthfulness of our statements.

    This is why mathematicians can ‘get away with’ speaking platonically: they test only for internal consistency, not causality. And that lack of understanding of causality – is why there is such confusion and ignorance over the foundations of mathematics.

    When one talks about math in platonic terms he demonstrates he does not understand its construction, and cannot testify to it. Therefore he never claims truth full correspondence but proof – mere internal consistency.

    Why is this important? Not because mathematicians do not understand the very simple technique that they employ by specializing in tests of internal consistency of constant relations. They don’t. They understand its success in describing the physical world.

    The success of mathematics in the physical sciences (and failure in social sciences) is caused by the fact that the universe consists of constant relations, and we do not know yet their first causes. So internal consistency and external correspondence assist us in describing with increasing precision those constant relations until such point as we can guess those first causes.

    However in human actions, we do not possess constant relations, only constant patterns (symmetries) of relations. And In human thought, we do not possess many boundaries at all – or rather, we lack the means of testing those boundaries of imagination. So the problem is much harder than mathematics is able to solve by tests of constant relations – math can only assist us in taking measurements whereby we attempt to identify constant intermediary patterns, despite the kaleidic distributions of our outcomes.

    What we seek is causality. Because we seek to permit man to act to take advantage of the current state of the universe, and acting such that we outwit the current deterministic path of some part of it and capture the energy for our use.

    Moreover, since actions are expensive, and humans engage in error, bias, wishful thinking, and deceit, we must conserve our energy as well as evade parasitism by others, and to do so requires we test enough dimensions of reality against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking and deceit, to preserve our accumulated interceptions of changes in state of reality.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-20 10:56:00 UTC

  • THE ORIGINS OF CIVILIZATION: MILITIA, PROPERTY, MARRIAGE by Joel Davis Civilizat

    THE ORIGINS OF CIVILIZATION: MILITIA, PROPERTY, MARRIAGE

    by Joel Davis

    Civilization emerges from 3 fundamental institutions:

    1) Militia (how to compete in the violence market),

    2) Property (how to compete in the production market) and

    3) Marriage (how to compete in the reproduction market).

    The polity fails or succeeds in competition by the functionality of three institutions. Through success in the violence market, the polity may establish and regulate it’s production and reproduction markets (via property and marriage). The polity regulates these institutions by LAW.

    Women were given the power to influence law, they weren’t also given the responsibility to defend societies institutions in the violence market, without this responsibility they lack signals of threats in the violence market required to inform their decisions.

    As their interests extended most significantly into the production and reproduction markets, they have voted to progressively destroy the institutions of property and marriage to transfer improved competitiveness to themselves (a logical exercise of self-interest, considering the signaling they’re exposed to).

    Without allegiance to the polity established through ‘skin’ in the violence market, allegiance to property and marriage (as institutions of group competitive advantage) naturally lacks also.

    We have two options:

    – Determine a method of signaling to Women which brings them into allegiance with the group in the violence market (stable husbands and children seem to do this to conservative women).

    – Remove enfranchisement from female classes due to the inherent risks to the group in the violence market their collective actions cause.

    Or, potentially a third option.. Find a method of limiting female franchise to women who have a form of “skin” in the violence market (wives/mothers/daughters of men with “skin in the game”)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-19 21:20:00 UTC

  • THE GOOD OF GODS AND MYTHOLOGY IN DECIDABILITY If truth is the language of the g

    THE GOOD OF GODS AND MYTHOLOGY IN DECIDABILITY

    If truth is the language of the gods, as it must be, then why is not bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, and deceit blasphemy?

    —“There might be a god archetype, in some pantheon, for almost every significant human behavioral pattern. I think that’s a helpful learning utility.”—Alex Houchens

    Exactly. But that is Myth and literature, for purpose of teaching by analogy. And it is not only important but necessary. Why? Because the western man uses HYPERBOLE to exaggerate, in order to show the consequence of ‘if everyone did this then..’. Kant restates this as the categorical imperative. But it is just the western method of using exaggeration of traits of individuals in order to force every living soul to ask “what if everyone did this” or “what are the consequences of this behavior over time”.

    Gods help us create general rules of decidability within a context by means of hyperbole (isolation of causal properties.)

    This is why we need myths, stated hyperbolically, and literature stated analogically: to create general rules, easily employed in a wide variety of circumstances, so that we may, through the thousands of little decisions every day, guide our civilization into that which we seek: parity with the gods.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-19 19:44:00 UTC

  • OUR ERA IN THE CONTEXT OF THE ENLIGHTENMENTS: THE RESTORATION OF EUROPA FROM SEM

    OUR ERA IN THE CONTEXT OF THE ENLIGHTENMENTS: THE RESTORATION OF EUROPA FROM SEMITIC AND IRANIAN INFLUENCE.

    The enlightenment succeeded in the physical sciences, but not in the social sciences, and we can see the german, french, russian, jewish, chinese reactions as social counter-enlightenments. What seems to have been under development in the 1800’s in Germany was the second scientific enlightenment (which benefitted the USA mostly), and the second attempt at social scientific revolution. Poincare, Maxwell, Darwin, Weber/Pareto/Durkheim, Menger, Spencer, Nietzche, Popper(science), Hayek (law) all came very close, and Weber, Mises, Popper, Brouwer, and Bridgman actually independently came to about the same conclusion, but they could not succeed against the pseudoscientific marxists and keynesians, just as the enlightenment philosophers could not succeed against the church and state.

    We can succeed. Because we have cognitive science, the record of the failure of keynesian economics, the record of the failure of communism, socialism, social democracy and the record of failure of rousseauian and lockeian man.

    The world merely needs the answer that the first scientific enlightenment, the second failed enlightenment (german) and the american post-german attempt failed to produce.

    Social science = natural law = reciprocity and the unit of measure = property.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-19 17:34:00 UTC

  • 1/3 of our budget is for social security, medicare, and medicaid. 1/3 of the bud

    1/3 of our budget is for social security, medicare, and medicaid.

    1/3 of the budget goes to the military.

    1/3 of our budget is called ‘discretionary’ and that means ‘everything else’.

    We don’t pay for our military of the budget, we inflate it away through the world’s dependence on the dollar as a reserve currency. (really. I know it’s hard to imagine but it is what it is).

    The majority of the military costs go to wages and retirement. It is actually our largest means of redistribution in the economy, absorbing millions. So much so that in Washington it is sometimes referred to as a middle and lower middle class welfare program.

    While we might want to think we can save money on the military, we can only save it by transferring costs to other Nato countries. Without the military and the demand for the dollar for oil and reserve functions worldwide, americans would lose the marginal difference in consumption. If you understand world oil markets you will understand why Iran and Russia act as they do. If Iran can create a bourse and dominate the region, it can replace the USA as an oil backed reserve currency. This would destroy the US ability to fund the military, and cause somewhere between a 30-50% decrease in the american household’s standard of living. Oil is to the current world as tin and copper were to the bronze age, and silver and copper were to the ancient mediterranean.

    Since the military costs us nothing (really), and we can’t really see social security, medicare, and medicaid decreasing, then the only alterable cost are discretionary costs.

    Since it is the interference in the traditional european (admittedly eugenic) social order, that conservatives and the middle class object to (but the six major immigrant cities that have the high populations depend upon) then it is going to be (sort of has to be) the discretionary spending that declines.

    The general theory is that we can break violently into regions and lose our economic and strategic position in the world, or we can devolve the high-conflict properties of the federal government to the states and regions and maintain our economic advantages.

    That’s the thinking anyway.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-18 17:18:00 UTC

  • KNOWING WHAT YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT. We use law (common law of torts) to decide ma

    KNOWING WHAT YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT.

    We use law (common law of torts) to decide matters of conflict. That is the total function of the law. (Yes, that’s just the fact of it)

    The practice of law evolved to standardize punishments in order to reduce retaliation cycles between groups that had evolved different punishments (yes, that’s just a fact of it)z

    The reason for the standardization was to prevent conflict was to preserve the income from taxation, and the cost of policing the territory and economy, including market for productive populations.

    Law exists as a set of records. Those records consist of decisions. Those decisions include reasons for those decisions. Those decisions are necessary to resolve conflicts between individuals.

    While we use the term ‘law’ for many purposes, the term can only mean common law – (post action). Command of dictators (direction to act or not to), command of legislatures(legislation) – direction to act or not to, and command of regulators (administration of insurance by the state) – (prior constraint), do not constitute law. They merely are enforced as if they are law.

    Whenever someone says something is like something else, it means he does not know what constitutes the thing in the first place.

    WHile it is possible to use analogies for the purpose of establishing definitions, one cannot treat an analogy as a premise for the purpose of deductions from the analogy.

    Instead, one can use analogies to establish understanding (definitions) then to clarify that understanding (definition) through operational construction (proof of possibility, test of parsimony).

    From that parsimonious definition it may be possible to continue to produce constructions that define operations that change state between that which we have defined.

    But analogies are the primary reason that people overestimate their understanding, and it is the primary means of deceit.

    The word ‘is’ and all variations of it (the verb to-be) can only mean ‘exists as’. Otherwise it is equivalent to using the word ‘thing’: meaning ‘i dont know or understand this reference.’

    So, no. If you understand what you speak, then you can speak it and argue with it. If you cannot understand it you may speak it, but you cannot argue it.

    It’s not complicated.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-18 14:48:00 UTC

  • The Incentives of Leftist Parasites

    By Eli Harman Why are leftists and social justice warriors so immune to facts, logic, and arguments? It’s because social justice warriors are lying, parasitic, pieces of shit. The aim of lying about equality, is to force transfers and redistribution from the more equal, to the less, including the extension of trust, that will be abused, and the extension of opportunity, which will not be fully realized. All of this is costly, so it represents a parasitic burden on the people forced to provide it. The assumption of that burden, and its maintenance, are compelled and enforced by shaming, scolding, nagging, gossip, rallying, all the “feminine means of coercion,” all the tools of moral, social, and economic, ostracism that can be mustered and deployed to raise the cost of disagreement or dissent rather than address the points of contention in good faith. But because this wholesale plunder and parasitism through fraud creates great boons for its beneficiaries, and salves their fragile egos, they will fight tooth and nail to protect it. And on account of the proceeds of this parasitic plunder and fraud, reliable pawns for leftist elites are bought and paid for; the lynch pin of their demographic and democratic dominance; which they are not willing and not able to maintain by keeping pace with conservatives reproductively. There are nearly insoluable conflicts of interests here that can only be resolved, at the very least, by the physical removal of millions, and the vigorous, violent, and proactive production and supply of incentives, against engaging in dysgenic parasitism, plunder, and fraud. Otherwise it’s too profitable. It will be done. And the more it is done, and the longer it is done, the costlier it will be either to continue, or to stop; for the cost of either can only ever grow, until the final reckoning, and the final toll is paid (whichever way it is paid…)

  • The Incentives of Leftist Parasites

    By Eli Harman Why are leftists and social justice warriors so immune to facts, logic, and arguments? It’s because social justice warriors are lying, parasitic, pieces of shit. The aim of lying about equality, is to force transfers and redistribution from the more equal, to the less, including the extension of trust, that will be abused, and the extension of opportunity, which will not be fully realized. All of this is costly, so it represents a parasitic burden on the people forced to provide it. The assumption of that burden, and its maintenance, are compelled and enforced by shaming, scolding, nagging, gossip, rallying, all the “feminine means of coercion,” all the tools of moral, social, and economic, ostracism that can be mustered and deployed to raise the cost of disagreement or dissent rather than address the points of contention in good faith. But because this wholesale plunder and parasitism through fraud creates great boons for its beneficiaries, and salves their fragile egos, they will fight tooth and nail to protect it. And on account of the proceeds of this parasitic plunder and fraud, reliable pawns for leftist elites are bought and paid for; the lynch pin of their demographic and democratic dominance; which they are not willing and not able to maintain by keeping pace with conservatives reproductively. There are nearly insoluable conflicts of interests here that can only be resolved, at the very least, by the physical removal of millions, and the vigorous, violent, and proactive production and supply of incentives, against engaging in dysgenic parasitism, plunder, and fraud. Otherwise it’s too profitable. It will be done. And the more it is done, and the longer it is done, the costlier it will be either to continue, or to stop; for the cost of either can only ever grow, until the final reckoning, and the final toll is paid (whichever way it is paid…)

  • Invasion vs Immigration

    by John Dow

    1. Imagine two hypothetical nations.. Let’s call them Nation A and Nation B.
    2. They have different cultures.. Let’s call them Culture A and Culture B.
    3. And because of these different cultures, they have different sociopolitical structures.. Let’s call them Sociopolitical Structure A and Sociopolitical Structure B.
    4. Now, if a bunch of people from Nation A all decide to force their way into Nation B for the purpose of altering Nation B’s sociopolitical structure, we correctly call this an invasion.
    5. However, if a large number of people from Nation A immigrate to Nation B, they will gain sociopolitical influence, and because they have Culture A, they cause the sociopolitical structure to alter akin to Nation A.In both scenarios, people from Nation A are occupying Nation B and altering their sociopolitical structure.

      So really, a military invasion and mass immigration differ only in method, but have the same result.

      If someone aides a foreign power to invade their own nation, this is called treason, so why do we tolerate those who endorse and facilitate mass immigration?

  • Series: Models of Decidability … And explanation of the importance of Series

    SERIES: MODELS OF DECIDABILITY (very important)(advanced) Michael Andrade teased me the other day for posting so many series, often without resolution. Why? Each series is an attempt at creating a proof. An attempt to create a set, series, sequence, spectrum, that increases the precision of every definition by its membership in that spectrum. I try to include as many terms as I can, and when something doesn’t fit, I add more dimensions. I record each ‘failed proof’, and some of them I’ve tried dozens of times – each time trying to take it to further clarity and precision. Eventually I end up with all terms defined on different spectra, and each spectra represents a causal axis – a universal law of man. It is from the identification of these axis that I test each other axis, and together develop an internally consistent and externally correspondent logical description of the laws that govern men’s impulses, thoughts, and actions. And while definitions are important for clear argument, and definitions in series (linear or otherwise) are the best we can achieve, that is not my end objective. Just as reality consists of dimensions and eventually pure relations, mathematics consists of dimensions and eventually pure relations, our methods of argument consist of dimensions and eventually result in pure relations. Just as mathematics consists of very simple operations, programming consists of very simple operations, chemistry consists of a very simple set of operations, the ‘theory of everything’ must eventually consist of very simple (deterministic) operations, also… in practice, the law of perfect reciprocity must also consist of a simple set of operations (we know that already from experience), and most importantly *argument* must consist of a very simple set of operations (it does), and a limited number of *dimensions* (it does). Moreover, just as languages vary from the primitive and high context (Chinese), to the advanced and low context (English/German), Arguments vary from universal context (human experiences), to high context (normative), to low context(natural law), to minimum-context’ (science, or ‘truthful’). And so just as we have sought the ‘law of chemistry’, and the law of nature (cooperation), we can seek the ‘law of sentience’. The law or argument. The law of communication. And with that law we can create arguments ever closer, and ideas ever closer, to correspondence with reality. And it is from correspondence with reality that we gain knowledge of reality – and from that knowledge, dominion over reality. SERIES: ARGUMENTS (COMMUNICATION) ========================== IMAGINARY (we should do ) Occult Literature (Separatist Theology)(separate)(intuition – justify) Supernatural Literature (Theology)(organize organize by authority)(reason) Moral Literature (Philosophy)(organize by ideal)(rationalism) Literature (Allegory)(envision) DESCRIPTIVE (we have done) History (Analogy)(advise) (note: non-econ history is literature) Economics (Record) (evidence of cooperation)(advise) Law (Record)(evidence of conflict) Natural Law (Logic)(decide) Science (Truth )(learn) JUSTIFICATIONARY (we justify ) Ratio-empirical-operational Ratio-Empirical Rational Reasonable Moral Normative EXPERIENTIAL (we feel) Sentimental Expressive