Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • TRUTH GIVES YOU, AND US, POWER (interesting) It’s not that I don’t make mistakes

    TRUTH GIVES YOU, AND US, POWER

    (interesting)

    It’s not that I don’t make mistakes. I do. Often. Or that I’m all that arrogant (other than when it suits marketing purposes). It’s that it’s simply very, very, very, hard to use testimonialism and propertarianism and not become aware of your errors, biases, wishful thinking, attempts at suggestion, obscurantism, overloading, and deceit. It allows you to dramatically increase the ratio of true and false propositions.

    There is no substitute however for the market for criticism by equally testimonial means. One simply cannot think of everything on one’s own.

    So I find most of my errors are errors of interpretation of others, or of historical facts that I use as illustrations and examples. These are errors of meaning, not errors of construction.

    But even in construction, when we are subjectively testing the incentives that cause the decisions of others, we can be easily ignorant of the factors involved (inputs) that the individual is weighing. it is very easy to judge one’s misrepresentation of those weights, but if we are not aware of them we cannot subjectively test (judge) them.

    This is why discourse, jury, and market are so effective in improving our polities, commons, products, services, and information **IF** they consist of testimonial language and warranty (truth) … and why they are so destructive in its absence: because self correction is not only difficult but increasingly impossible. And manipulation by others is so trivially easy.

    The most expensive commons we have built in the west is truth telling (testimony), in an effort to maintain the high trust (militia) polity. A Sovereignty requires Militia, Militia requires trust, trust requires truth, and truth produces all the amazing consequences we attribute to western civlization: under economic adversity we innovate faster than the rest.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-23 11:46:00 UTC

  • If you’re selfish, stupid, and ugly, you’re undesirable for cooperation, associa

    If you’re selfish, stupid, and ugly, you’re undesirable for cooperation, association, reproduction, and employment. I realize this frustrates the female intuition. Because just as a gay man desires the attention we give to females and is ‘hurt’ by its absence – because men are disposable, and their sexual attention unwanted – an undesirable woman feels the same ‘hurt’.

    But because of the reproductive necessity of feminine solipsism, these women lack agency: they are unable to distinguish between, or unable to tolerate, their undesirability and need for self-reformation, from active hostility toward them. Absence of attention is not the same as the presence of malice. Instead, the fact is, that if you are impulsive, selfish, stupid, and ugly, you’re just a dead weight cost on the rest of humanity. And no one pays you any attention until you change yourself.

    (The more I understand the differences in male and female agency the more disappointed I become with the prospects. men evolved greater agency because we’re dangerous to one another if we can’t develop it. Women’s lack of agency was tolerable before politics and nearly disappeared when they had multiple children. In that sense women’s lack of agency is an evolutionary asset for women with three or more children, and a detriment without them.)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-23 10:05:00 UTC

  • (thinking about an upcoming interview) Well, you know, it’s pretty hard to descr

    (thinking about an upcoming interview)

    Well, you know, it’s pretty hard to describe empiricism before empiricism, rationalism before rationalism, reason before reason. So it’s pretty hard to describe Testimonialism, a little less so Propertarianism, and a little less so market government.

    And just as language had to change in response to every major conceptual evolutionary leap, learning that language each time is pretty hard. But in exchange for that leap, those problems of that were previously not understood, describable, and debatable, become understandable, describable, and debatable – extending our understanding of the universe we live in.

    To create internally consistent means of categorizing, comparing, and deciding between increasingly complex questions (problems) we have developed a number of categories of increasing complexity. In mathematics we think in terms of numbers, sets of numbers (arithmetic), ratios of numbers (mathematics), spatial relations (geometry), and relations in time (calculus), and fragmentary information (statistics). Each method increases the number of dimensions we are able to describe as constant relations.

    Outside of mathematics, in philosophy (or at least in analytic philosophy) we use similar categories to describe a spectrum of increasingly complex constant relations.

    They are science andMetaphysics, psychology and Epistemology, sociology and Ethics, politics and Law, the arts and Aesthetics, group competitive strategy and War( violence, immigration, economic, norms(religion) and information (propaganda).)

    Note the use of lower case for the physical and social sciences, and the uppercase for the branches of philosophy.

    What I have tried to accomplish, and I think successfully, is to create a common value neutral, scientific language, for the categorization, comparison, decidability of all of these subjects, across all of these fields. Whether you want to call it a science or philosophy at this point is rather meaningless, since the result of my work is that those two terms are now synonyms, and everything else is either pseudoscience, pseudo-rationalism, pseudo-moralism, utopian literature, or the supernatural.

    The net result of which is that I have, I think, made it much harder to use language at every scale, from the intrapersonal (self), to interpersonal, to an audience, to the media, to the government, to the courts, to engage in error, bias, wishful thinking, omission and suggestion; loading framing and overloading; or pseudoscience, pseudo-rationalism, pseudo-moralism, and supernaturalism; our outright deceit, and repetition of falsehoods (propagandizing).

    And just as empiricism radically reduced falsehood in the informational commons, I am fairly sure that testimonialism will radically reduce falsehood in the commons. And I am entirely certain that Testimonialism(epistemology) and Propertarianism(ethics) will produce as great a change in human existence as did empiricism and darwinism.

    So when I tell you that my work consists of a framework:

    Acquisitionism (psychology)

    Testimonialism (epistemology)

    Propertarianism (Sociology)

    Strictly Constructed Natural Law (Law)

    Market Government (Politics)

    Sovereignty, Heroism, Transcenence (Aesthetics)

    Group Evolutionary Strategy (War)

    And that this framework completes the promise of the Anglo scientific enlightenment by solving the problem of the social sciences.

    That’s what my work has accomplished.

    And that is why it takes a bit of explaining.

    But if you want to know WHY I spent my life on it. It’s because (a) I really dislike conflict, (b) I really dislike deceit, (c) I really love my people, (d) I understand the unique accidents that are i-life, ii-sentient life, iii-cooperative life, and iv-western civilization: the people who discovered “Truth Proper”.

    And so when I heard conservatives fail to say anything intelligent in arguments against the pseudoscience, pseudo-rationalism, outright lying, and propaganda of the de-civilizing left, I wanted to create a rational language to explain their ancient group evolutionary strategy, and the reasons that that strategy had resulted in dragging mankind out of ignorance, disease, and poverty in the pre-historic world of the bronze age, in the ancient greco roman world, and in the modern european world.

    But somewhere along teh way I decided that I had to not only provide a positive means of explanation, but a negative means of criticism. In other words, I had to make it much harder than it is today, to engage in very complex lies.

    Because just as in the early world we developed domesticationism (paternalism/property/sovergitny), and in the ancient world we developed reason, and in the modern world we developed science, the middle east developed authoritarian religion (zoroaster) in response to domesticationism, authoritarian monotheism (judaism/christianity/islam) in response to reason, and authoritarian pseudoscientific cosmopolitanism (Boaz, Marx/Lenin/Trotsky, Freud, {Frankfurt School}, Cantor, Mises, Rothbard/Rand, and Strauss) using the same utopian fictionalism that had Abraham and his cult, and Zoroaster and his cult.

    I have no doubt that they will seek to invent another authoritarian set of lies to counter against testimonialism, but in the interim, we can take at least one step forward in restoring western civilization from the Third Great Utopian Lie of the East.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-22 14:44:00 UTC

  • REACT/FLUX JS AS GAME (STATE) ENGINE (tech stuff) I had the scariest cool tech i

    REACT/FLUX JS AS GAME (STATE) ENGINE

    (tech stuff)

    I had the scariest cool tech idea today, that solves the virtual dom problem.

    Just as a hint. When building oversing we realized that we could create a panel in the workspace for creating a 3d game using the tasks lists, the ‘variables'(awards/inventory), and the workflow engine. We even played with it a bit.

    That’s because, at least architecturally, Oversing is a game engine that looks like business software.

    But while (getting frustrated) with React (or rather, the fad/bullshit language everyone is using), I came to understand that the technology and its designers are is working backwards from the DOM model, to a game engine. Or what most people more primitively refer to as a state engine.

    Game (state) engines consist of Nouns(objects), Verbs(messages), Operations(transformations/procedures, and the Renderer just draws the state every time. Meaning that the game engine redraws whats visible to the user, such as the ‘room’ in a text adventure game, or whats within visual range in a 3d adventure game, or in the DOM, the dom elements you can see on the screen that have changed. rendering the DOM is more expensive than rendering polys – a problem I assume will be solved in the future.

    React = Rendering Engine (render just diffs)

    Virtual Dom(Stores) = Database(es)

    Flux = Command Procesor (verb + noun + message)

    Events = Command Grammar (verb, noun, message)

    The primary issue is that they overuse references instead of following Jquery’s model of sending messages to named entities.

    In other words, explicit commands.

    This is why the software is unreadable (‘magic’).

    In state engines you pass a verb and it’s message to a noun, and then call the procedure(s) listed in the ‘table’.

    To create an applicatoin you create a renderer (react components) that react to changes in state.

    Then a state table that keeps track of the properties of the objects (many objects can be rendered using the same component) sort of like many trees can be built in a game engine by calling the same tree ‘model’.

    Then you code all the verbs that each component (instance of a component) can process.

    And you keep track of a ‘win’ state (set of states you’re trying to bring into being).

    So to create a react-flux application (a state engine for rendering applications) we have existing design patterns going back to the 1970’s. And the people working on this technology apparently are ignorant of it? Or haven’t made the correlation?

    This means it is terribly easy to create a ‘better design’ for working with the a reactive (functional) virtual DOM renderer, and an imperative command processor. Why? there is no value to imperative programming in rendering because it relies too much upon memory allocation for state. There is SOME value in functional programming for recursive / repetitive processing. There is negative value to functional programming and high value to imperative programming for interacting with humans (business and program logic.) But as usual, most idiots want a monopoly rather than a market in which the best of each is available.

    BUT WE ARE SPENDING BILLIONS DOING JERKOFF WORK with browser technology that is just antiquated as hell.

    Anyway, this make me even more excited about Oversing’s future.

    And in the interim it answers my architectural questions about using these technologies. If I build an app as I’m suggesting the “rendering engine” that is stressing me out is readily replaceable.

    Thanks for listening to my expurgation of technological frustration.

    Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-21 15:14:00 UTC

  • YES, YOU CAN STATE A FALSE QUESTION. A question itself can be based upon false p

    YES, YOU CAN STATE A FALSE QUESTION.

    A question itself can be based upon false premises. So yes, a question can posit a falsehood, just as a statement can posit a falsehood.

    In fact, asking false questions is a conveniently deceptive means of stating falsehoods under the pretext of innocence. (The media does this all the time now – positing opinions, and statements, and arguments as questions as a means of escaping accountabiilty for their words: propagandizing).

    Whenever someone asks a question, first restate it as an assertion (statement), then simply test whether it is true or false. This will identify people who are engaged in deceptions.

    —“How do we prove everything is all just in our minds, or isn’t?”—

    This question is based upon a falsehood: the conflation of logical proof of internal consistency, with the falsification of alternatives leaving a theory that survives as a truth candidate.

    SPECTRUM:

    1) Associable: it is possible by free association to identify a pattern of similarity between two ideas.

    2) Reasonable: One constructs a route, or way, (wayfinding) within that system we call ‘reasonable’ to determine if an idea is reasonably conceivable without succumbing to ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, loading, and framing, or overloading, platonism, supernaturalism, pseudo-rationalism, pseudoscience, or outright deceit.

    3) Rational: non contradictory. One tests a statement for non-contradiction.

    4) Proof: Logical Proof: One constructs a proof of internal consistency within an axiomatic system.

    5) Fact: Observable Fact: One constructs a theory of observation, in an attempt to posit a fact.

    6) Theory: Theoretical Truth: One constructs a theory of causality by external correspondence, and attempts to testify (promise, or speak) truthfully when describing it, by providing due diligence against its possible falsehoods.

    7) Law; A theoretical truth that has survived testing in the market for ideas within which the proposition is defined.

    9) Truth: ultimately most parsimonious description humanly possible given the limits specified in the conditions. (We do not know the first principles of the universe so we cannot yet state truths with any degree of reliability)

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-21 12:37:00 UTC

  • THE CORPSE WE CALL NEW ENGLAND My experience living in New England is that moral

    THE CORPSE WE CALL NEW ENGLAND

    My experience living in New England is that moral responsibility is something people feign but never practice. Not that people are necessarily immoral, but that they leave morality entirely up to the individual without taking responsibility for one another.

    There is nothing left here. It’s a desiccated carcass devoid of moral moisture, by a long drought of self congratulatory puritans trading asceticism for socialism in search for even higher-minded virtue signals with which to express their authoritarianism.

    The civic society of the town-square imported from ‘little England’, gradually dissipated to the dry utopian winds along with investment, culture, aesthetics, optimism, by the crushing weight of importing working classes, rising soviet influences, followed by industrial flight. Then, having failed to enthrall the common man, trading up again, and importing underclass immigrants, rising postmodern influences, followed by white flight. As if repeating past failures might lead to different outcomes. Asceticism, socialism, and postmodernism are just excuses for high minded, authoritarian, rule which produces genetic, cultural, economic, and intellectual wastelands. The market creates, authority destroys.

    Hartford, New Haven, Bridgeport, Waterbury, Danbury are right behind Baltimore and Detroit, with a glimpse of Oakland frequently visible on the horizon through the skeletons of industrial, cultural, and genetic remains.

    The Big Sort Continues. The Foundry continues to throw good money after bad. The Heartland pleads for reason. The South waits out the fall. The mid atlantic bleeds them dry. And coastal Techno-eco-topia creates the illusion that there is hope.

    This was once the most beautiful place on earth to live.

    But Puritan and Jewish authoritarianism laid waste to the eden we had made here.

    Curt Doolittle

    (and yes, I am a son of puritan founders)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-20 22:37:00 UTC

  • ADD A DIFFERENCE IN AGENCY AND COST TO THE GENDERS The whole (a) Agency ( Left-l

    ADD A DIFFERENCE IN AGENCY AND COST TO THE GENDERS

    The whole (a) Agency ( Left-lacks-agency vs Right-has-agency) concept provides just as much explanatory power as (b) the solipsism vs autism, (c) the intertemporal division of reproductive perception, cognition and labor, (d) the competing but compatible differences in reproductive costs, and (c) R/K (herd/pack) selection analogy.

    But all those statements fall prey to our metaphysical acceptance of some sort of equality, when instead, the consequences of this effect are similar to the evidence of differences in investment strategy: women invest more conservatively (they take less risk) and men more aggressively. So women tend to do better, especially when they work in groups (investment clubs).

    But this is to ignore causality: only men would create a stock market (risk market) containing a sub-market of low risk stocks. Otherwise we would only have investment, bond, and banking industries but no stock market. The stock market functions on speculation and risk calculation. The externality produced by that market is a set of lower risk stocks that those with lower risk tolerance can profit from.

    We see the same thing in claims that women are more civilized. But this is nonsense. Men create civilization by absorbing the majority of stress, damage, and risk.

    Men must defeat the dark forces of time and ignorance. Women must just make use of what ‘gets through our shield-wall’.

    So while women bear higher reproductive production costs. Men bear higher defense, management, and research and development costs.

    And the evidence is that the man’s cost is higher…..

    Civilization is not so much in our interest as it is in our mother’s sisters, wives, and daughter’s. Otherwise. hunting other humans is higher risk but greater enjoyment – and often greater reward.

    Assuming that research and development was invested in weaponry, mobility, fitness, cooperation, and skill.

    Full accounting means never taking any assumptions about natural order for granted.

    Man is a rational creature who chooses rational ends. That is all.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-18 17:00:00 UTC

  • YES THE STOIC REVIVAL IS DETERMINISTICALLY OCCURRING Stoic revival is happening

    YES THE STOIC REVIVAL IS DETERMINISTICALLY OCCURRING

    Stoic revival is happening and can be accelerated. It requires no mysticism, no ‘belief’ (suspension of reason), only discipline. And as such it can be taught as a ‘scientific discipline’, a ‘philosophy’, or a personal religion.

    We cannot hold the ancients responsible for ‘mysticism’ because just as we use pseudoscience and pseudorationalism today they had no other means of explanation available to them

    What’s important is that they attempted to find a way of competing with, succeeding in the world, rather than ignoring it, or escaping it, or denying it – like other cultures did.

    Stoicism is action oriented. it asks you to improve your own human capital (virtues). Through acting. Through gradual achievement. But it allows one to ignore the judgements/opinions of others. That this is simply the internalization of natural law is not obvious.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-18 10:45:00 UTC

  • CHINESE CONFLATIONISM Not only were there no terms for politics vs society, but

    CHINESE CONFLATIONISM

    Not only were there no terms for politics vs society, but there was no distinction. It’s one vast hierarchy. An enormous family. Which many of us agree with, and which produces exceptional ends. However, there also exists nothing but conflation and the total absence of competition. And without competition one relies on outsiders to force one to evolve. And without others to force one to evolve, one adopts the decision of ‘stability’ rather than ‘innovation’. which is desirable in many cases. But in the end, it means you will stagnate and eventually be conquered.

    Man must transcend the animal, the domesticated animal, the fully human.

    The universe’s clock ticks.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-18 09:17:00 UTC

  • CHOOSING BETWEEN FASCISM AND CLASSICAL MONARCHY (important post) I think that on

    CHOOSING BETWEEN FASCISM AND CLASSICAL MONARCHY

    (important post)

    I think that once you ‘lose hope’ in democracy and equality and return to hierarchy, you have a range of choices available. National socialism on the one end and classical monarchy on the other.

    The ‘good’ in national socialism existed in their use of nationalism, aesthetics, and the creation of rituals and festivals – the kind of ‘religion’ that replaces otherworldly mysticism with real-worldly art in all aspects of life. This was genius. But while Germany had created the next flowering of Europe (after Italy’s renaissance and England’s scientific enlightenment), and brought european civilization to it’s highest achievements therein, national socialism overextended itself like most religions do, into “purity” for its own sake.

    Moreover, National socialism was dependent upon finding a leader who can do good. Classical Monarchy is dependent upon a leader who prevents people from doing bad. It is very hard to do good other than build monuments (which is what monarchs do). It is very easy to prevent harm without doing harm, which is what monarch’s do.

    So, IMHO, it is better to have an aesthetic monarchy IN GENERAL, and call out the fascists in time of economic and political war. In other words I think it is useful to constitute both a military, a police force, a judiciary, and an aesthetic ‘priesthood’ that maintains purity.

    And let them work together to suppress evils of all kinds. In my opinion, natural law can be used to allow the policing of aesthetics. If that is the case, then culture can be policed just as information is policed. This form of policing merely limits the bad without limiting the innovative.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-18 08:21:00 UTC