Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • 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

  • Philosophy (Moral Literature) Is Not Much Help

    I AM NOT SURE PHILOSOPHY (LITERATURE) IS MUCH HELP (from elsewhere) It’s one thing to suspect, another thing to do. Reading is hard. Arithmetic is harder is harder than reading. Accounting is harder than arithmetic. Programming is harder than accounting Natural Law is harder than programming. If you look at the people who have been with us for a long time everyone has gotten better at argument. Some can use the basic arguments. Some people can use the various series. But how many of us can write natural law in operational grammar? The beauty of Propertarainism is that it contains each of those levels: the historical argument, the causality of Acquisitionism (incentives), The epistemology of Testimonialism, the Ethics (and definitions of unethical) of Propertarianinism, the politics of Market Government, the competition of group evolutionary strategies, the aesthetics of transcendence …. and the logic, grammar, and rhetoric of natural law. There is something for everyone no matter their level of ability. But just as some people can do arithmetic, some accounting, some mathematics, some programming … only some will be able to write natural law (for example, like James Augustus does intuitively or John Dow approaches). Myself I think it is more important for most people to recognize and READ it (just as reading can be taught to most people) than it is to WRITE it (which requires far less effort and ability). The vast majority of people will learn propertarianism (natural law) from Eli, not me, and can be introduced by William Butchman or others. Those who can construct grammatical arguments, I think, will be those who come by it intuitively, or who have financial, legal, and programming experience, or who simply work hard at it like any other of the ‘logics’. The problem for those who study philosophy (literature), is that it is in fact just ‘literature’, and not a STEM discipline (science). And to some degree it anchors you just as religion anchors the theological. Natural Law, like programming, logic, and math, is a STEM discipline. The difference between programming and natural law is merely that the comparison tests (incentives) of man, and the operations (actions) of man, are mere ‘calculations’, and as such broader, and less limited than the ‘computations’ of machines. And while the machine checks our cognitive biases due to it’s rigid grammar, we must check ourselves in our arguments by checking our own grammar. And that is the very hardest part.

  • Philosophy (Moral Literature) Is Not Much Help

    I AM NOT SURE PHILOSOPHY (LITERATURE) IS MUCH HELP (from elsewhere) It’s one thing to suspect, another thing to do. Reading is hard. Arithmetic is harder is harder than reading. Accounting is harder than arithmetic. Programming is harder than accounting Natural Law is harder than programming. If you look at the people who have been with us for a long time everyone has gotten better at argument. Some can use the basic arguments. Some people can use the various series. But how many of us can write natural law in operational grammar? The beauty of Propertarainism is that it contains each of those levels: the historical argument, the causality of Acquisitionism (incentives), The epistemology of Testimonialism, the Ethics (and definitions of unethical) of Propertarianinism, the politics of Market Government, the competition of group evolutionary strategies, the aesthetics of transcendence …. and the logic, grammar, and rhetoric of natural law. There is something for everyone no matter their level of ability. But just as some people can do arithmetic, some accounting, some mathematics, some programming … only some will be able to write natural law (for example, like James Augustus does intuitively or John Dow approaches). Myself I think it is more important for most people to recognize and READ it (just as reading can be taught to most people) than it is to WRITE it (which requires far less effort and ability). The vast majority of people will learn propertarianism (natural law) from Eli, not me, and can be introduced by William Butchman or others. Those who can construct grammatical arguments, I think, will be those who come by it intuitively, or who have financial, legal, and programming experience, or who simply work hard at it like any other of the ‘logics’. The problem for those who study philosophy (literature), is that it is in fact just ‘literature’, and not a STEM discipline (science). And to some degree it anchors you just as religion anchors the theological. Natural Law, like programming, logic, and math, is a STEM discipline. The difference between programming and natural law is merely that the comparison tests (incentives) of man, and the operations (actions) of man, are mere ‘calculations’, and as such broader, and less limited than the ‘computations’ of machines. And while the machine checks our cognitive biases due to it’s rigid grammar, we must check ourselves in our arguments by checking our own grammar. And that is the very hardest part.

  • Aristocracy: We Ask Cooperation of those with Agency, or its Promise

    We don’t ask cooperation of beasts We don’t ask cooperation of domesticated animals. We don’t ask cooperation of pets We don’t ask cooperation of children We don’t ask cooperation of the incapable We don’t ask cooperation of those without agency. We ask little cooperation of those who request subsidy. We ask more cooperation of those who request freedom. We ask even more cooperation from those who request liberty. We desire the full cooperation of those who possess agency. We require and cannot avoid the full cooperation of those who desire sovereignty. The few rule the many, to transcend mankind. We can rule and transcend, or be ruled and fail to. We can possess sovereignty in fact, or something less by permission. But to possess sovereignty requires we possess agency. And to possess agency we must possess the ability, the knowledge, the fitness and will… … the will to fight, kill, slaughter, and destroy. There is no transcendence, no sovereignty, no agency for the weak, the cowardly, the timid, or the dim. And no liberty, nor freedom, nor subsidy for others if we fail.

  • Aristocracy: We Ask Cooperation of those with Agency, or its Promise

    We don’t ask cooperation of beasts We don’t ask cooperation of domesticated animals. We don’t ask cooperation of pets We don’t ask cooperation of children We don’t ask cooperation of the incapable We don’t ask cooperation of those without agency. We ask little cooperation of those who request subsidy. We ask more cooperation of those who request freedom. We ask even more cooperation from those who request liberty. We desire the full cooperation of those who possess agency. We require and cannot avoid the full cooperation of those who desire sovereignty. The few rule the many, to transcend mankind. We can rule and transcend, or be ruled and fail to. We can possess sovereignty in fact, or something less by permission. But to possess sovereignty requires we possess agency. And to possess agency we must possess the ability, the knowledge, the fitness and will… … the will to fight, kill, slaughter, and destroy. There is no transcendence, no sovereignty, no agency for the weak, the cowardly, the timid, or the dim. And no liberty, nor freedom, nor subsidy for others if we fail.

  • The Function of Propertarian Grammar

    THE FUNCTION OF PROPERTARIAN GRAMMAR by James Augustus With out factoring in IQ, most humans cannot (or struggle to) separate/deflate intuited self-interest (the elephant) from their perception (solipsism) —which is to say that the average human struggles to launder imaginary content from cognition and so they approach truthfulness as a function of rationalizing intuition. Those with masculinized, autistic brains benefit from the decreased cost of laundering imagination & emotional content from our perception, and reporting/testimony thereof. And (we) see the flaws (cognitive biases) in our thinking and especially in the testimony of others. And because of our ‘awareness’, we find it necessary to perform ‘test’/criticisms across multiple dimensions. Propertarian grammar boils down to just that—it limits us to constructing arguments that are open to criticism across multiple dimensions: terms/categories, logic, existential possibility, parsimony, full accounting, empirical correspondence, & reciprocity (natural law/social science). (Note: A person’s/group epistemological methodology [literary, hermeneutic, mythological, occultist, theological, rationalist, pseudo scientific, asymmetrical empiricism] is most often derivative of the lies they seek to tell.)

  • The Function of Propertarian Grammar

    THE FUNCTION OF PROPERTARIAN GRAMMAR by James Augustus With out factoring in IQ, most humans cannot (or struggle to) separate/deflate intuited self-interest (the elephant) from their perception (solipsism) —which is to say that the average human struggles to launder imaginary content from cognition and so they approach truthfulness as a function of rationalizing intuition. Those with masculinized, autistic brains benefit from the decreased cost of laundering imagination & emotional content from our perception, and reporting/testimony thereof. And (we) see the flaws (cognitive biases) in our thinking and especially in the testimony of others. And because of our ‘awareness’, we find it necessary to perform ‘test’/criticisms across multiple dimensions. Propertarian grammar boils down to just that—it limits us to constructing arguments that are open to criticism across multiple dimensions: terms/categories, logic, existential possibility, parsimony, full accounting, empirical correspondence, & reciprocity (natural law/social science). (Note: A person’s/group epistemological methodology [literary, hermeneutic, mythological, occultist, theological, rationalist, pseudo scientific, asymmetrical empiricism] is most often derivative of the lies they seek to tell.)

  • The Lies We Seek To Tell: Evolutionary Biases.

    LIES WE SEEK TO TELL: THE BIASES BUILT UPON OUR ANCIENT ‘CIRCUITS’ by William Butchman “the lies they seek to tell” Human bias is interesting. We have evolved machinery in our brains, and we are processing novel situations with these ancient systems, processing things that they were never designed to process. We use these mental models which are simplistic, and when something happens in the universe which breaks our model (because we don’t account for it) we ‘startle’ and a circuit built for snakes is activated. (I don’t know if I have this exactly right, I’ve only heard it once) (From elsewhere:) Why we believe snakes are the most evil things: Dr. Peterson suggested that the reason why we have a particular antipathy towards snakes is because we’ve long been their prey (since our ancestors were tiny rodents). I believe our fear and terror and hatred of snakes might also be particularly strong because they continued to kill us long after we outgrew the other reptilian predators (once you’ve evolved to be monkey-sized, you can handle lizards because you’re big enough to fight them and you can see far enough around you to avoid them. But you can’t see so well around your feet or the topside of tall branches, aka where snakes lurk. The threats we fear most are the ones we can’t see, Snakes happen to fit into all the hard to see places. There’s also something particularly traumatizing about having one of your primate relatives eaten by a snake as opposed to any other predator. Their deaths are the most agonizing. Unlike one of those big cats with teeth evolved to puncture skulls or a wolf that goes for the jugular, snakes kill by poison or suffocation and they swallow prey whole. Oftentimes over the course of several hours. Prior to human inventiveness, I can’t imagine a more torturous and agonizing way to die. Snakes: these surprising dangers that lurk and jump out at us. We startle as we try to assess, an ancient circuit is activated. So, we have a bias to express the unknown, dangers, as snakes. At least this is the evolutionary theory of the prevalence of the mythology. So, I can see (if this is true) how our biases may be built on ancient circuits.

  • The Lies We Seek To Tell: Evolutionary Biases.

    LIES WE SEEK TO TELL: THE BIASES BUILT UPON OUR ANCIENT ‘CIRCUITS’ by William Butchman “the lies they seek to tell” Human bias is interesting. We have evolved machinery in our brains, and we are processing novel situations with these ancient systems, processing things that they were never designed to process. We use these mental models which are simplistic, and when something happens in the universe which breaks our model (because we don’t account for it) we ‘startle’ and a circuit built for snakes is activated. (I don’t know if I have this exactly right, I’ve only heard it once) (From elsewhere:) Why we believe snakes are the most evil things: Dr. Peterson suggested that the reason why we have a particular antipathy towards snakes is because we’ve long been their prey (since our ancestors were tiny rodents). I believe our fear and terror and hatred of snakes might also be particularly strong because they continued to kill us long after we outgrew the other reptilian predators (once you’ve evolved to be monkey-sized, you can handle lizards because you’re big enough to fight them and you can see far enough around you to avoid them. But you can’t see so well around your feet or the topside of tall branches, aka where snakes lurk. The threats we fear most are the ones we can’t see, Snakes happen to fit into all the hard to see places. There’s also something particularly traumatizing about having one of your primate relatives eaten by a snake as opposed to any other predator. Their deaths are the most agonizing. Unlike one of those big cats with teeth evolved to puncture skulls or a wolf that goes for the jugular, snakes kill by poison or suffocation and they swallow prey whole. Oftentimes over the course of several hours. Prior to human inventiveness, I can’t imagine a more torturous and agonizing way to die. Snakes: these surprising dangers that lurk and jump out at us. We startle as we try to assess, an ancient circuit is activated. So, we have a bias to express the unknown, dangers, as snakes. At least this is the evolutionary theory of the prevalence of the mythology. So, I can see (if this is true) how our biases may be built on ancient circuits.

  • Why Do U.s. Americans Give False Comments Of Appreciation?

    America is a high trust society. We allow people to perform below their capacity, or even fail, as long as (a) they try hard, (b) they are honest.

    When an american says something complimentary he is saying, ‘you can trust me to act in your interests even if you are imperfect or fail’, or ‘as long as you are honest and trying hard we will not criticize you, and will only offer advice if asked’.

    In other words, we cannot fix everthing, education of others is costly, education of others may be unwanted, and people getnerally will learn on their own. If you’re adding benefit to something, it is not our place to create more benefit. It is our place only to prevent harm. By preventing harm, most people will achieve success at their own rates, and learn to be independent.

    By this process we “Teach Men to Fish” at their own pace, at their own choice, and we ‘eliminate’ the people who (a) dont try hard (b) aren’t honest. If we instruct people then they learn only to obey commands.

    FWIW: Most of our charity work in the world has caused more harm than good. It is not clear that aside from teaching literacy, and providing health care, that we do any good at all. Although in retrospect, bringing christianity rather than islam has been one of the great achievements of western civilization. Christianity builds commerce and literacy, and islam creates illiteracy ignorance and poverty.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-do-U-S-Americans-give-false-comments-of-appreciation