Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • WHAT ARE “VERBAL ILLUSIONS”? ENDING THE POLLUTION OF PHILOSOPHY WITH THE EQUIVAL

    WHAT ARE “VERBAL ILLUSIONS”?

    ENDING THE POLLUTION OF PHILOSOPHY WITH THE EQUIVALENT OF OPTICAL ILLUSIONS

    (important) (I figured out how to talk about suggestion)

    The pollution of philosophy with the verb “to be”: creating nonsense problems because our minds do not seem able to avoid the confusion created between experience and existence when we say “is” or “are”.

    So the vast number of sophistries we falsely categorize as philosophical problems are merely confusions created by the misuse of grammar ( effort discounts ) just as a magician misleads with gestures.

    The only difference is that the magician knows he deceived others. But the sophist does not know he deceives himself.

    We evolved to substitute information not existing in speech of others through inference. We also evolved to save effort in thought and speech through suggestion ( shortcuts ). The words is and are suggestive shortcuts.

    But when this shortcut is combined in certain permutations it forces the circumvention of reason and the evocation of pre-rational substitution.

    In other words, it forces us out of reason and reality into intuition and imagination. This is the same trick that occurs with optical illusions. Both optical illusions and verbal illusions are created by the same means of suggestion: disinformation or partial information constructed to force intuitionistic substitution.

    This is the same technique used by storytellers to invoke suspension of disbelief, priests to convince the foolish of the existence of imaginary worlds, and politicians and public intellectuals to lie, and dishonest philosophers to overload, and sophists to confuse.

    Ergo: any question of philosophy that contains the words is or are and is not stated in operational language is at best sophistry, at worst, the most insidious evils that have ever been let loose on man.

    It is this understanding that has made me an anti philosophy philosopher and forced me to unite science and philosophy.

    Because whether religious, political or philosophical, the abuse if these cognitive biases to harm mankind must end.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-13 05:01:00 UTC

  • PROGRAMMING PROVIDES THE CURRENT LOGIC OF OPERATIONALISM – YET WE CAN EXTEND IT.

    PROGRAMMING PROVIDES THE CURRENT LOGIC OF OPERATIONALISM – YET WE CAN EXTEND IT.

    Programming is as important an innovation in thought as is empiricism. Because while empiricism is but correspondent and logic is a but question of sets, programming is operational (existential).

    I think the act of creating databases is about as close to philosophizing as you can come, but it involves the same problem as logic: as practiced by the discipline its logical but non-operational, and often non-correspondent.

    When you combine user interfaces(human-reality), programming (operations), and databases (sets/logic), where the data structures must correspond to real world entities (empiricism), then you have covered the entire conceptual spectrum.

    If we combine the correspondent, logical, and operational, we have everything but the moral. If we were to add full accounting of all transactions (full capital accounting that is: under property in toto) we would essentially create the entire spectrum of dimensions necessary for cognition.

    My view is that while the blockchain method is currently too weak for this purpose, that the general theory of duplicated recursive competing ledgers provides the full accounting of TITLES (changes in ownership), and that local databases can take care of local accounting (local measures of local capital), then we would have sufficient dimensional information to produce meaningful artificial intelligences bound by the same limits as we are.

    But regardless of what we do with programming itself, my objective is to teach people that the sensation of teaching a computer but having the reaction “well it should know that’s what I meant!” vs what you told it to do are two different things. And that this ‘gap’ is solved by training teh mind to think operatoinally – existentially?

    Why? Because just as empiricism taught us that the information we wishted to be contained in our words was not in fact there, programming or in broader terms ‘operationalism’ teaches us how little we actually know.

    In other words, it teaches us humility and skepticism in our own thoughts. Or conversely, it teaches us how to test for error and deceit in others.

    Is this an additional burden? Of course it is. So was scientific knowledge. So was literacy. So was numeracy. So was law and order. These are all costs. But they are not sunk costs. They are investments we make. And the investments in truth telling are always the BEST investments man has EVER made.

    (Good luck trying to argue otherwise)

    My strategy is to require law be written programmatically (operationally) even more so than today. Strictly constructed by the same means. This will produce an even more readable body of law, and one that can be accumulated technologically in future systems other than the human mind.

    Law is very close to programming now. But we do not have all the requirements in law that are necessary for the defense of the informational commons.

    If we do that, then law will be dimensionally complete (as far as I can tell). And we will be able to hold the liars at bay.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-13 04:45:00 UTC

  • YES, WOMEN ARE UNDERREPRESENTED IN HISTORY – BECAUSE WE REMEMBER EXTREMES, NOT R

    YES, WOMEN ARE UNDERREPRESENTED IN HISTORY – BECAUSE WE REMEMBER EXTREMES, NOT REGULARITIES

    (read for some good useful arguments)

    Women were ineffective at leaving ‘extraordinary’ marks on history for a number of obvious reasons:

    1 – Strength, athleticism, bravery, loyalty, and cunning provided marginal differences in groups that made possible disruptions in society. Consensus does not produce change, but regularity.

    2 – All progress is achieved through either conquest, competition, or innovation (change in state); and innovation appears to be an almost exclusively masculine achievement – so much so that despite a century of seeking even a single woman we find none equal in theoretical innovation to men, and those women we do find produce empirical insights instead(ie:Ostrom). All innovation is produced at the limits of human abilities. Women dominate the middle and men dominate the extremes.

    3 – Rearing five or six children in the pre-modern era is a full time 365 day a year occupation that has occupied them. Unfortunately, women desire attention, and feminists desire political power, so while the soldier and the craftsman grasp that they are as important to the whole as a group as the great man is as an individual; this does not suit the political interests of feminists to assist in overthrowing the aristocratic sovereign meritocratic social order, and restoring the primitivism of the rest of the world. We spent thousands of years producing the compromise of the nuclear family, and one-vote for one-family. This is the optimum compromise position under which neither gets what they most prefer, but most all get the best they can get. The sacrifice we pay for marriage and family is a sacrifice just as taxes, obeying norms and laws, and fighting war are sacrifices we pay for getting the best we can not the best we desire.

    4 – The impolitic truth: women are demonstrably far less loyal to the group (willing to bear costs) than men even if they are far more concerned with harmony (social safety for themselves and their offspring). Throughout history women have been considered shallow, petty, duplicitous, traitorous, and impulsive. It was just as hard to domesticate women as it has been to domesticate men. And that domestication was achieved in large part through controlling reproduction (just as we do with animals) using the institution of monogamous marriage first, and the prohibition on cousin marriage later, and aggressively hanging malcontents last. Men evolved to capture and herd women. It was through cooperation and the development of property and family that we came to a compromise between the male ability and desire to herd women, and the female ability and desire to choose mates. Women have a smaller number of closer friends, men a larger number of looser friends. Women never stop trying to gain status among other women. Men seek only to maintain a ‘natural’ status so that they maintain value to the tribe. We have little value for ‘care, affection, and sex’. We have great value for changing the state of the physical world to that which we prefer. Women will cheat on the tribe just as men will cheat on a woman. THis behavior is not at all conscious.

    WOMEN IN THE FUTURE

    The current era is coming to a close, and will very likely be remembered in history as the second attempt at hyperconsumption. And that women in leadership positions is evidence of the failure of the men in that civilization, just as it was in the ancient world, just as it is in the modern, and just as it is in board rooms in the largest companies: the fact that women are in charge is merely evidence of the failure of men to create a consensus among men who create a competitive difference.

    Just as we cannot all be leaders, women do not bear quality children in large numbers, a civilization will die – from having no ‘host’ for its ideas.

    Men work at the extremes, and we dominate the extremes.

    Women work at regularities and dominate the regularities.

    We must teach extremes and incentivize extremes through narratives. We must teach regularities and incentivize regularities by demonstrations. Father extremes, mother regularities.

    The fact that our genes inspire us to do these things is not surprising.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-13 03:57:00 UTC

  • ARE EMOTIONS RATIONAL? AND WHY PHILOSOPHY IS SO SUCCESSFUL IN DECEIT. AND WHY I

    ARE EMOTIONS RATIONAL? AND WHY PHILOSOPHY IS SO SUCCESSFUL IN DECEIT. AND WHY I AM AN ANTI-PHILOSOPHY PHILOSOPHER

    (read this: very very very important synthesis)

    (A) as far as I know all emotions reflect a reaction to a change in state of some form of inventory ( property ).

    ( b) as far as I know all moral intuitions reflect cooperative changes in state to personal or common property ( property in toto ).

    (C) as far as I know all human cognition is limited to that which can be acquired.

    (D) as far as I know, that which can be acquired is limited to our ability to act in existential reality.

    (E) as far as I know we can use reason to inspect memory searches. And that memory searches restimulate emotions.

    (F) and that the value of our memories is ( amplitude ) is determined by these weights.

    Emotions are measurements.

    We may or may not measure optimally.

    Emotions are not produced by reason even if they can be evoked by reason.

    So I tend to position emotions as empirical measurements by our sensory system.

    Trained by experience.

    Open to retraining by experience.

    Reason can be used to produce experiences that train or retrain us.

    Imagining and modeling can be used to produce experiences that train or retrain us.

    But while emotions can be said to be a logical need for an acting life form. And we can rationally and empirically test that hypothesis with consistent success.

    Yet we cannot say emotions are produced rationally. We can only say in retrospect that we rationally comprehend the function of those emotions as logically necessary for acting creatures.

    ALSO

    this question provides yet another example of the pollution of philosophy with the verb “to be” – creating nonsense problems because our minds do not seem able to avoid the confusion created between experience and existence when we say “is” or “are”. So the vast number of sophistries we falsely categorize as philosophical problems are merely confusions created by the misuse of grammar ( effort discounts ) just as a magician misleads with gestures.

    The only difference is that the magician knows he deceived others. But the sophist does not know he deceives himself.

    We evolved to substitute information not existing in speech of others through inference. We also evolved to save effort in thought and speech through suggestion ( shortcuts ). The words is and are are suggestive shortcuts. But when this shortcut us combined in certain permutations it forces the circumvention of reason and the evocation of pre-rational substitution.

    In other words it forces us out of reason and reality into intuition and imagination.

    This is the same technique used by storytellers to invoke suspension of disbelief, priests to convince the foolish of the existence of imaginary worlds, and politicians and public intellectuals to lie, and dishonest philosophers to overload, and sophists to confuse.

    Ergo: any question of philosophy that contains the words is or are and is not stated in operational language is at best sophistry, at worst, the most insidious evils that have ever been let loose on man.

    It is this understanding that has made me an anti philosophy philosopher and forced me to unite science and philosophy.

    Because whether religious, political or philosophical, the abuse if these cognitive biases to harm mankind must end.

    Curt Doolittle.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-13 03:34:00 UTC

  • WAS ALEXANDER GREAT? MORE THAN HISTORIANS GIVE HIM CREDIT FOR ALEXANDER In the 3

    WAS ALEXANDER GREAT? MORE THAN HISTORIANS GIVE HIM CREDIT FOR

    ALEXANDER

    In the 3500 year old battle between the aristocracy(how we live) and the dictatorship(how most of the world lives) he was the first great general to defeat the first great threat to our civilization (our aristocratic civilization): the Persian Empire, and as a consequence the totalitarianism of the river civilizations, making the world safe for the territorial farming civilizations.

    What you might add to your understanding of history, is that those people who invented Aristocracy invented as a consequence, sovereignty. And the only possible means of decision making under sovereignty: debate, reason, logic, empiricism, and the objective Truth that results from their use; and the only possible institutions of decision making under sovereignty: jury, senate, democracy; And the only possible method of conflict resolution under sovereignty: Natural, judge-discovered, common law. And the methods of organization under sovereignty: a market for production of goods and services; a market for reproduction (marriage); a market for the production of commons (multi-house democratic government); a market for the production of knowledge (science); a market for leadership (election).

    Despite the west being poorer, less populous, and on the edge of the bronze age, the west advanced faster than the rest of the world in both the ancient athenian(navy)-spartan(army)-roman(industry), and modern anglo(navy)-german(army)-american(industry) eras, because there is no faster way of adapting and innovating than heroism, sovereignty, truth, and markets-in-everything.

    So Heroism creates the need for Sovereignty, which in turn creates the need for everything the west has achieved that we value.

    And that is why Alexander Matters. He is the HAND of Aristotle. And the two of them conquered the east in defense of the west. Aristotle conquered mysticism and falsehoods, and Alexander despotism.

    The west has a very important and unique idea: sovereignty.

    ASIDE: THE WORD “SOVEREIGNTY” AS USED BY THE CLASSES

    – Sovereignty : Aristocracy – Organizing the Polity.

    – Liberty: Burghers – Organizing the Economy.

    – Freedom: Laborers – Transforming resources

    – Consumption(‘so called positive freedom’): women, children, and the underclasses

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-13 01:50:00 UTC

  • WHY? DO WE TEACH RELIGION? COST AND ERROR. – Myth must only be envisioned and ac

    WHY? DO WE TEACH RELIGION? COST AND ERROR.

    – Myth must only be envisioned and accepted.

    – Philosophy must be reasoned and understood to be envisioned and accepted.

    – Science must be measured, reasoned, and understood, to be envisioned and accepted.

    1) Myths are easier to teach than measurement, calculation and reason.

    2) Myths are false in that they are mere analogies, but having stood thd test of time they produce ‘true’ or ‘correspondent’ actions.

    3) it is easy commit error with measurement, calculation, and reason – and hard in myth.

    Why? That which we convey by myth requires only analogy to experience. That which we must measure calculate and reason is de facto outside of our direct experience.

    In other words, there is more falsehood but less error in religion.

    Along the same lines:

    Why do we possess these forms of ethics:

    instinctual, imitated, mythical, virtue, rule, and outcome?

    Answer: Pedagogy.

    Why do we possess fairy tails, myths and legends, history, literature, and philosophy?

    Answer: Pedagogy.

    Why do we teach arithmetic, mathematics, geometry, calculus, non-euclidean geometry, and statistics?

    Answer: Pedagogy.

    Why do we argue with one another using emotive approval and disapproval, morality, reason, rationalism, historical analogy, empirical evidence(direct), economic evidence(indirect), and ratio-operational-empirical argument?

    Answer? ABILITY

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-12 09:19:00 UTC

  • (Sisyphean Tasks) I am writing this (long) piece to the Evonomics tribe in an at

    (Sisyphean Tasks)

    I am writing this (long) piece to the Evonomics tribe in an attempt to support their ends but correct their justifications and means.

    I won’t quite say I see pseudoscience in it, but I do see a failure to understand intellectual history, and a misdiagnosis of the problem of contemporary economics: decidability that can only be provided by the choice between eugenic, compromise, or dysgenic ends.

    While they make a few good criticisms of the financiers – the conversion from market for commons and rule of law to discretionary authoritarian rule by credit/fiat money.

    I’ve been working on it four about three hours? Maybe two and a half. And I”m tired. …. I feel like Sisyphus.

    Everyone wants to do the right thing but they can’t grasp that the only possible right thing is exchange under which no one gets the best they want, we all just get the best we can. (Nash Equilibrium).

    And why can’t they grasp it? They are overwhelmingly incapable of judging that their moral intuitions are ‘correct’ – but they aren’t.

    I have another piece that I haven’t finished on the problems with contemporary economics.

    And you know, I seem to have this limit – that at somewhere between 2500-3500 words I get tired of trying to make these points. But they are probably 4500-9000 word problems. lol.

    Most authors get to where they conceptually think in 750 work chunks. This corresponds to most people’s information assimilation limits (time which they can concentrate on an issue). I’m sort of getting there myself. I tend to think in those terms now. And I like to break arguments into those chunks. And I find that get frustrated if I have to write longer pieces.

    So I am breaking this one into smaller chunks. But I still have to finish before I lose interest in pushing the rock up the hill one more time.

    Sigh.

    Morality isn’t what you think it is. Sorry.

    We can calculate it but you can’t feel it. You’re just one data point. We can know what’s immoral. But choosing the moral is a matter of cooperation, not conviction.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-11 06:42:00 UTC

  • TO ALL ON “THE OLD VS NEW MOLYNEUX” Stephan ( and all of us ) are moving to the

    TO ALL ON “THE OLD VS NEW MOLYNEUX”

    Stephan ( and all of us ) are moving to the right for the simple reason that the libertarian assertion that the nature of man is identical to the libertarian personality and our moral bias merely yearning to be free, is as false as is the progressive assertion that the nature of humans is altruistic (maternal).

    Like almost all in social science, it turns out that despite a century and a half of pseudoscience, the evidence is in: that man is rational and chooses between moral or immoral because of the incentives at the time. The conservatives were right. Man is merely rational/

    So conservatives work to limit incentives to the productive, and prohibit the unproductive. Immigration was just the last straw. But for the past sixty years the central issue has been whether the individual(progressive and libertine) or family (conservative) should be the central object of policy. And the jury is in: while law must be designed for the individual actor, policy must be designed for longer time preference: the family, tribe, and nation.

    When the industrial revolution hit us, the great wealth that was created, inspired us to the falsehood that we had transcended our limits and the limits of nature. But we had only moved the window of possibility to cover larger populations. That does not mean that there are no limits to production and consumption.

    THE CONSERVATIVE (ARISTOCRATIC) MODEL: MARKETS IN EVERYTHING

    – A market for goods and services (the Market)

    – A market for reproduction (Marriage)

    – A market for enfranchisement (Defense and Emergency)

    – A market for commons (one house of government per class conducting exchanges)

    – A market for polities (competing small states and voluntary exit)

    In other words, there are no free rides – especially on the cost of creating the norms and institutions that we call property rights that can exist only when insured by reciprocal defense. The market was not natural in any sense – the evidence is that the market was constructed by the suppression of violence. Accelerated by the suppression of fraud. And now requires the suppression of falsehood, so that we can suppress the government itself: conspiracy.

    Sorry, but the world is moving right. For good reason. Anything else is suicidal to family, tribe, nation, and race. The cosmopolitan era has ended. Its pseudoscience pseudo-rationalism and pseudo-moralism, and conflationary argument is over. Libertinism ended along with neoconservatism and socialism. The experiment failed. We are unequal. We are competitors. We compete through cooperating because it is the least-bad form of competition that produces the most beneficial externalities. And only markets in everything make a condition of liberty possible.

    Hayek was right. Liberty is the condition produced by the rigid identification and enforcement of natural, judge discovered, common law that evolves to prevent and resolve conflict and retaliation spirals so that we may maintain the disproportionate value of cooperating on production, despite the constant incentive to engage in murder, violence, harm, damage, theft, fraud, fraud by omission, fraud by externality, socialization of losses, privatization of commons, conspiracy, rent seeking, monopoly seeking, statism, conversion-religion-disinformation, displacement-immigration, colonialism-conquest and war.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    PS: MORAL BIASES

    Moral overweigthing: Masculinism (islam)

    Moral balance: conservative bias (paterna/eugenicl)

    Moral bias: libertarian (brother/partner/ally)

    Moral blindness: progressive (maternal)

    Moral antagonist: Socialist, feminist, postmodernist, Libertine, Neocon – the weaponization of maternalism under democracy. (judaism)

    Just how it is. Conservatives are right.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-11 06:28:00 UTC

  • The fact that the distributions of abilities in all tribal and racial groups var

    The fact that the distributions of abilities in all tribal and racial groups varies considerably does nothing to help us choose behavior. It is not as if the lower will agree to the demands of the higher or vice versa. However we can trade with each other and in this way cooperate. Yes it is probably true that the lower are more burdensome than the upper can compensate for. So there is a maximum difference in populations that can cooperate. Because at some point the difference is large enough that we can no longer find mutual beneficial exchanges. The only moral objective is to reduce the rates of reproduction of the lower end of the spectrum until the remainder of the tribe nation or race can cooperate with the higher end of the spectrum. The twentieth century has been an exercise in crippling the able in order to attempt to advance those who are unable. Whereas it would be preferable to create specific developmental programs that suit abilities rather than create falsehoods.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-10 10:06:00 UTC

  • Yes, one can attempt to order the human world by constructing power to suit one’

    Yes, one can attempt to order the human world by constructing power to suit one’s imagination.

    Or you can deny the ordering of the world by power, so that only nature limits our construction of the world, not we.

    In my opinion, from the simple proposition that faster calculation will defeat slower calculation, and certainly defeat stagnation or regression, to deny power solves the problem of power.

    The rule of natural, common, judge discovered law of non-imposition of costs, denies that power.

    I don’t know what should be I only know what should not be. The market then can use the ‘can’ to calculate the ‘should’ that we cannot know.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-08 09:01:00 UTC