Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • THE WEST’S UNIQUE INVERSION OF THOUGHT Again. Man is rational. We calculate acqu

    THE WEST’S UNIQUE INVERSION OF THOUGHT

    Again. Man is rational. We calculate acquisition probability of property in toto – especially status – with frightening speed and precision.

    The enlightenment thinkers could not escape religion nor monopoly morality. Even the Greeks and Romans, and our best thinkers today, confuse the western smbition as the cause of our civilization rather than the western prohibition left no other options open to us than the one we chose.

    The minute you choose sovereignty the consequence is truth, law and Liberty.

    We are created by our chosen limits leaving only actions available to us within them.

    No other civilization chose sovereignty because none other developed personal property prior to rule.

    This inversion of human thought is going to be almost impossible to train into man’s mind.

    We think in terms of opportunities and we rail against limits. But it is limits that forced western man to create the greatest opportunities because sovereignty, property, and reciprocal insurance are the most granular allocation of choice and opportunity humanly possible. And Common law the fastest prohibition possible.

    This is a profound insight into the velocity of different cultures.

    Sovereignty is our cult, and law is our scripture

    And nobody seems to say that because while true it is not inspirational.

    So as such our mythos is like every other aspect of our civilization, divided into the primary scripture of law, and mythos, art, literature, invention and commerce as the separate positive religions that spring from the limits of that law.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-07 06:43:00 UTC

  • UNDERSTANDING ART Art is best intellectually understood as a technology no diffe

    UNDERSTANDING ART

    Art is best intellectually understood as a technology no different from any other. That technology uses three basic axis:

    1) craftsmanship,

    2) design (aesthetics)

    3) content

    Art can be an innovation in materials and techniques, it can be an innovation in aesthetic appeal, and it can be used to advance the binding myths of a people. If all three of these are met we generally refer to this ‘high information density” as “high art” or just “art”. at the other end of the spectrum is utilitarian goods. In between is everything else.

    We tend to organize by high art (monuments), editorial or commentary art (essays so to speak), decorative art, designed and decorated objects, designed objects, crafted objects, and commodity crafts. But this reflects all produced goods not just art.

    Art evolves with crafting and materials technology. For example there are only so many properties to fashion: Stiffness, Texture, Cut, Pattern, Color, and combinations thereof – culminating in ‘information density’. And what we see in history is the evolution of styles to signal status with the evolutions in technology to produce stiffness, texture, cut, pattern, color and combinations thereof to produce status signals.

    Art evolves with aesthetics – the most obvious being the medieval invention of the grid system, and Vermeer’s use of mirrors and prisms, and the 20th centuries use of negatives, photos, and projectors. And the 21st century’s use of digital imagery and animation. (Hollywood is a horrifically powerful magnet since with copyright laws, it’s possible to profit from proletarian art.) We have dramatically increased our sensory stimulation in various ways. Although monumental scale still seems to hold the high ground in aesthetics.

    Art evolves with meaning. And this is where you’re going to find something interesting to discuss in your paper on Australia. Because a lot of things happened to art in the 19th and 20th centuries. We had the industrial revolution and this dramatically increased the demand for artistic signals as people entered the middle and consumer classes. Photography put a bullet in the income of painters and sculptors, and printing became even cheaper. We saw the same effect in the 1980’s with the expansion of the printing capability – producing high-quality posters. Although that died rather quickly.

    So generally you can look at any era, and ask “what is changing in the market for decoration, symbolism, and status?” If you can answer those questions (and I know you can) then you can pick a single or set of pieces and discuss how they reflect the state of Australian crafts, economics, status signaling, and political and editorial ambitions, and attempts to make monuments.

    Or you can type a lot of postmodern bullshit that has filled the pages of top twenty new york based art magazines since the second world war. lol

    Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-06 11:53:00 UTC

  • We are all attracted to what we understand. We SHOULD learn to be attracted to w

    We are all attracted to what we understand. We SHOULD learn to be attracted to what is GOOD for us. But this depends upon whether what is good for us is (a) available, and (b) obtainable. If not then what is emotionally and sexually good for us may be the best that is both available, and possible to obtain.

    I mean, I am ABSOLUTELY POSITIVE a Victoria’s Secret Angel would be good for me. But they are neither available or obtainable with the assets I have to trade.

    lol

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

  • We seek emotions because we evolved those emotions for very obvious reasons: rew

    We seek emotions because we evolved those emotions for very obvious reasons: rewards. What is it that we are seeking a reward for? What change in state or preservation of state do we seek to achieve and for what reason?

    Emotions are only rewards and punishments. What are we rewarded and punished for by monopoly orders?

    Originally, and still in some parts of the world, competition was considered immoral.

    Why isn’t the monopoly of orders, like competition, just lagging indicator of our need to create institutions that allow us to act morally in the new order, rather than cling to what is no longer moral out of habit and intuition?

    BTW: I usually say it this way: we value status signals higher than every other good. Why are status signals valued higher than any other good? Why do we need confidence in our status? Why do we want status signals from others? Why would we evolve such a thing?

    for the same reasons every other species has means of demonstrating fitness. Except that we cooperate, so it is not just reproduction but survival that depends upon our status.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-06 04:23:00 UTC

  • ALL, Here is why (a) it takes me so long (b) why I don’t ‘go deep’ (anchoring vs

    ALL,

    Here is why (a) it takes me so long (b) why I don’t ‘go deep’ (anchoring vs discovery), (c) and how I approach my work, and (d) the evolution of the goal.

    If I look at the works of others who have tried to accomplish something of this scale, it appears to take on average ten years. Some of these people publish incrementally(marx), some in topics (smith and hume), and some of them publish all at once (kant). I conceived of the problem in 1992, wasn’t able to devote much time to it until 2001, but by 2006 understood what would be required to solve it. Starting in 2006 I was lucky enough to devote part time to working on it, so that by 2009, I understood propertarianism, the concepts i must cover and framework for doing so but not how to solve the problem of truthfulness in law. By 2012 I was able to work full time on it, and by 2014 I had the outline worked out for the whole work, and solve the problem of truthfulness. In 2015 the Nietzcheans pressured me into answering the problems of religion and aesthetics. And since 2012 my secondary objective has been to learn to speak increasingly clearly.

    I’m working my way through each step of philosophy and social science.

    metaphysics, psychology, epistemology, ethics, norms, politics, law, group evolutionary strategy, war, and aesthetics. This is a tremendous project, and honestly, it is not what I set out to do. But it is what I feel compelled to do now that I understand it.

    I don’t go deep immediately on subjects because the work exists by others. I don’t feel the need to restate it. I leave it to others to do that. that’s a ‘teacher’ job not a ‘scientist’ job. And partly because I understand the problem of anchoring and overinvestment. So as a self-defense measure, I try move the entire framework together just as if I was working on an old master painting, from the underpainting through to the last tiny details.

    I have to admit to another basic fear – that I have survived three serious illnesses and I am hopeful that if I produce the overall framework, that if something happens to me, followers can (like most followers do in all other fields) both expand then teach then distribute the ideas. Whereas if something happens to me and I touch on only a piece of it, then the principle theory – the Wilsonian synthesis – will not come into being.

    If communicating in terms even marginally comprehensible to others wasn’t such an issue for me, and I could retreat into the conflation of continental philosophers, then I suppose it would be better if I did not work in public at all. But the truth is that the practice of communicating (teaching) what I am trying to convey is the tool I use to learn to simplify as best as I can, the transformation of collectivist coalescent moral thought, into collective, critical, scientific thought. So I work in public and I spend lots of time with people because it is hard work to find a way of bridging between totalitarian moral argument and libertarian scientific truth.

    When I started out, my objective was to produce an amoral (scientific) language for the comparison and contrast of different political and group strategies. SO that I could give conservatives and ‘whacky’ libertarians a rational and scientific language. This is what i found in Locke, Mises, Rothbard and Hoppe: the reduction to property rights and voluntary exchange, an amoral language. But what I also found in them, was a middle class bourgeoise ethic that could not survive competition from those with superior political orders.

    So I had to reform that method such that it applied to high trust orders (property in toto, and non-retaliation).

    And once I understood this, then I wanted to know how to put it into law. And once I understood I must put it into law I understood I had to solve the problem of truth. And then I had to produce an argument defending it. And thus, a full framework that consolidated the philosophical, moral, legal, political, competitive, aesthetic, and physical.

    This provides a full defense against any attack upon it.

    Anyway, that’s why I do what I do.

    Like it or not.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-06 04:15:00 UTC

  • Once we evolved sentience we required a fanciful positive incentive in order to

    Once we evolved sentience we required a fanciful positive incentive in order to deal with the fact that the universe is hostile to us, does not care about us, and will exterminate us in a heartbeat if we cease the struggle.

    And that our collective consciousnesses in each tribe constitute the god we speak to so that together we maintain the illusion that there is some ‘hope’ for us.

    So some cultures look to the past(china, japan), some to the future(the west), and some to fantasy (Islam, Christianity, but most certainly Hinduism), and some to rejection of reality altogether (Buddhism).

    That describes all possible extremes of present-avoidance available to man. I did not say that spirituality provided what is good for man. In fact, other than Stoicism, I think all cults in history are as destructive in some sense while constructive in another (But why does Christianity create prosperity?)

    But they all provide the same escape from stresses in the present through membership in a virtual ‘pack’ or ‘herd’ that we can appeal to through direct subjective introspection of the patterns in that system of thought.

    All of which is largely an external consequence of sentience without the ‘internet’ equivalent of constant communication from mind to mind that seems to occur between pack and herd animals.

    Individual thought comes at a high price.

    As an aside: stress is created by what psychologists call ‘neuroticism’. So some personalities feel this need greatly, and some personalities feel it very little.

    If we combine this with intelligence, we see some people have a trust issue because of dunning Kruger effects (they cannot tell whether someone lies or not).

    So if we combine intelligence vs neuroticism we get a pretty obvious way of graphing different populations and societies.

    Westerners have higher creativity, and this seems to be correlated with the fact that we have higher neuroticism.

    It may be that either higher demand for individualism higher neuroticism or the inverse.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-05 01:52:00 UTC

  • Color me humbled, appreciative, and in awe. Great work. NOTES FOR YOUR USE: PROP

    Color me humbled, appreciative, and in awe. Great work.

    NOTES FOR YOUR USE:

    PROPERTY IN TOTO

    – The academy uses ‘reported’ vs ‘stated’ preference. We correctly use ‘demonstrated’ preference.

    – Why do you have the right to depreciate the normative values others have invested in as a flag? I mean, if I bore a cost to create a norm, and there is nothing false in the norm, then why is it you can cause damage to the norm? This is how people treat symbols. So if free speech is lmited to truthful speech, then these are not questions any longer.

    – Natural Property = that which we expend time, effor,t resources, risk, to obtain without imposing costs upon that which otheres have expended time, effort, resources, risk, to obtain

    – Starting with the choice of predation, parasitism, boycott, cooperation, or buying options on future cooperation.

    – The strong are always paying the cost of non-parasitism, non-predation upon you. THe only reason to refrain from non-parasitism and non-predation is if you boycott, cooperate, or buy options on the future of cooperation. The question is, then, what’s the limit of things you agree not to engage in non-parasitism and non-predation against? Well, it depends upon the terms of your existing social order. If you have a low trust order with no commons, or a high trust order with lots of commons, you defend that what you’ve invested in. If you’ve invested in high trust high commons society, then you defend those things that comprise it. If you don’t then you don’t defend, and you act parasiticall against them. This is what high trust people object to: parasitism upon their investment in the high trust commons. And high trust peoples are stronger for the simple reason that they are wealthier and can produce more competitive commons – not the least of which is warfare.

    This is why polities with different (lower and higher) property definitions are not compatible.

    TESTIMONIAL TRUTH

    The purpose of testimonial Truth To state how to construct contract, legislation, and law, and how to promote contract, legislation, and law, such that it is almost impossible to engage in error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, pseudoscience, propaganda, and deceit.

    Once we have testimonial truth, we can treat information – like air, land, and water – as a commons. We can grant people universal standing in matters of the commons. And preserve universal applicability to all people. This creates a market with both opportunity to issue ideas, and juridical defense against fraudulent and harmful ideas. (scientists do this already really). We could not limit speech to truthful speech without a legally testable criteria. Testimonialism provides lawyers, prosecutors, juries and judges with criteria that can be stated in law and adjudicated like many other laws.

    Normative adoption of testimonialism would produce giant gains equal to *science over mysticism*.

    We are feeling the effects of the second great deception. The first was monotheistic utopian mysticism, and the second has been pseudoscientific utopianism. So it’s not just that I want to eliminate error. It’s that I want to eliminate deception in all its unconsious, justifiationary, wishful, and intentional forms. THat requires we elminate error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, pseudoscience, propagandizing and deceit.

    MORALISMS(APPROVAL) VS EMPIRICISM (TRUTH)

    Separating approval and disapproval, truth and falsehood, so that we can conduct trades. Approval is on ly necessary in small groups. Everything else requries just truth and exchange. The reason we must engage in approval and disapproval, is only when we are determining the use of common property. If we are discussing private property then approval is irrelevant. If we are trying to determine the use of common property at scale, we can only do that through truth and trade and full accounting, not approval or disapproval.

    BLOCK’S IMMORALITY

    Even if we say that someone has the right to use drugs, does that mean you have the right to SELL them drugs? So if you grow your own pot, smoke it at home, and don’t operate machinery or impose sound or light or behavioral costs on your neighbors, then that’s fine. I am not sure how one could make the argument that he has the right to sell goods that will lead to harm regardless of the individual’s volition.

    This same strategy applies to copyrights and the creative commons licenses. I can understand prohibiting profiting from the creative works of others, but I can’t understand how you can prohibit someone from copying something for personal use. Conversely, I don’t see how you can claim you have a right to profit from creations of ideas – unless the polity has provided off book compensation to if you’re conducting basic research.

    INCREMENTAL SUPPRESSION

    The use of the natural, common, judge-discovered law, markets for reproduction(marriage), markets for goods and services, markets for commons, allows for the most rapid identification of new forms of parasitism and predation, and their immediate prohibition with the first case adjudicated. This allows societies to adapt positively (markets) and negatively (courts) faster than any OTHER POSSIBLE method of cooperation. Furthermore, since there are not AGGREGATES involved in the prodcess of case by case adjudication, and no CONSENT necessary for the production of reproduction, consumption, and commons, then public discourse an remain EMPIRICAL rather than AGGREGATE (moral, religious, allegorical).

    So this is the reason that the west developed FASTER in the ancient and modern worlds, than the rest of the world. This is the secret of the west. Sovereignty, Truth, Jury, Judge, natural, jduge discovered, common law, and as a consequence, the only possible means of cooperation under sovereignty, truth, jury, judge, natural, judge-discovered common law, is markets for reproduction (marriage), markets for production, markets for commons, market for dispute resolution, and the militia that fights together.

    Democracy then is antithetical since by eliminating the multi-house-government, and engaging in reproductoin, we have destroyed secred of the western excelllence.

    Thanks

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-04 05:26:00 UTC

  • I see a lot of selection bias in the comments. No pun intended. ) As far as I kn

    http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2016/09/group-selection-bleg.html( I see a lot of selection bias in the comments. No pun intended. )

    As far as I know:

    1) In the past 30k and certainly in the past 10K years, the driving force in selection has not been mutation, but ‘group domestication’. There are environmental selection pressures ( dairy, wheat, disease resistance) sure. But the primary difference has been, just like domesticated animals, domestication of mankind using the same techniques: maturity.

    2) the primary change that has caused the major differences between the groups has been (a) rate of sexual maturity (b) degree of sexual maturity, (c) sexual dimorphism. Ergo, the primary differences are in endocrine expression. And from the data I’ve seen it’s pretty obvious that the majority of the difference in maturity has been testosterone levels.

    3) the secondary major change has been how aggressively some groups domesticated their members (east asia, western europe), or how groups have been unable to domesticate their members (africa and the middle east).

    4) of the mutations that do occur, these appear to be relatively minor trade-offs that are related to these differences (speed vs endurance).

    So as far as I now, evolution by mutation, has been trivial compared to evolution by domestication. This inverts the multi-level selection argument: most genetic mutation and drift is ‘noise’ and domestication has been the primary influence (culture), with the secondary influence being territory.

    The genome stores ‘options’ which we seem to express. I am not sure there is much of a case to be made for terribly meaningful genetic variation.

    In my work (which seems to have pleasantly shocked the Africans), as far as I can tell, the major differences between regional groups is how successful they have been at eliminating the underclasses and redistributing reproduction upwards.

    Unfortunately, it’s impolitic. But it is what it is.

    Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-02 15:59:00 UTC

  • A ‘church’, allows us to join a family that may be better than ours. And if not,

    A ‘church’, allows us to join a family that may be better than ours. And if not, to obtain recognition and incentive to retain ours, if it is better than others.

    The Production of Generations:

    Fitness and Training (fighting)(sports)

    Education in work ethic and money.

    Education in the raising of family (reproduction).

    Education in the organization of production.

    Education in the organization of the production of commons.

    Education in fighting conversion, invasion, and war

    – Requries Education in:

    – reading, writing, grammar, logic, rhetoric, testimony, truth

    – numbers, arithmetic, accounting, mathematics and algebra, geometry, calculus, statistics, models, and econometrics.

    – the history of the family, of production of the commons and politics, of law, and of religion/conversion, invasion/migration, and war/conquest.

    – the history of arts, and crafts, sciences, and thoughts.

    Counsel (advice)

    Banking, and intergenerational lending.

    Title Registry (including births, marriages, and deaths)

    Celebrations and Feasts.

    Hospitaliers

    Civic Emergency

    Militia.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-02 04:15:00 UTC

  • THE TRUTH IS VISIBLE IN JESUS’ MYTHOS Jesus told us to love one another. He did

    THE TRUTH IS VISIBLE IN JESUS’ MYTHOS

    Jesus told us to love one another. He did not teach us to lie. But he was raised in a culture of myths and lies. And the language of mythology and lies was the only language of persuasion available to him. If he knew greek, he had not – like most primitive people’s – yet learned Greek reason. And if he did know of greek reason, it’s quite possible he saw it as a threat, since it was the language of government and contract, not the language of the slaves, fishermen, herders, and farmers. We tend to forget that his people at that point in time were the equivalent of the Brazilian favelas, north American ghettos, Arab hinterlands, and Indian slums.

    So Jesus spoke in the form of persuasion available to him: myth and lie, and probably in the language he was raised with: Aramaic. And under the influence of the Babylonian, Egyptian, and Jewish totalitarian fairy tales we call the old testament.

    If you compare those authoritarian fairy tales to , Aesop’s Fables, Anglo, Scandinavian, Germanic, and Slavic Fairy Tales, the Geek and Roman Myths, the Arthurian Legends, the Germanic Niebelugelied, the Illiad and the Odyssey,, the Carolingian Saga, and Whig History (the continuous evolution of Europa), you will see the difference between the heroic man competing with the gods to sit among them, and the submissive man under a tyrannical god’s authority, producing the cultures of stagnation, and anti-science, and pervasive deceit.

    Why? The difference between many competing tribes in the fertile crescent with the concentration of wealth in the industrialization of the river valleys, and many homogenous tribes in the Eurasian forests and plains, limited to relatively small individual manors and farms.

    So Jesus he asked us to love one another the only way that he knew how, with the only appeal to truth and authority he know how, in the only language he knew how to use. His advice was that if we unified with love we could resist the aristocracy – that the solution to authoritarianism whether eastern totalitarian and immoral, or western contractual and moral, was to love each other, and to resist them.

    We cannot blame the people in prior eras for lacking the persuasive technologies that we invented after they passed. In each era we do the best that we can with the tools available to us.

    Yet with the luxury of our current knowledge, we can restate his very simple teachings from his ancient primitive language, from his ancient mysticism, from his ancient authoritarianism, from the language of deception, into the current language.

    1) Treat others as you yourself would be treated. Treat no other as you would not wish to be treated yourself. There is no law above the two sides of this moral coin.

    2) Reserve time to commune with your neighbors and contemplate how you may do this.

    3) Impose no costs upon those things that others have labored to obtain, because it will provoke retaliation by others, and this will harm all of us.

    In case we need reminding, this refers to:

    – The life, body, offspring, mates, and relations of others.

    – The property that others have obtained by discovery, production or trade, from those things justly discovered, produced, and traded.

    – The norms, traditions, laws, and institutions of others so long as they do not violate these rules.

    – Speak the truth at all times, no matter the consequence.

    – Neither act, coerce others to act, nor even think of these things.

    – Show charity to those who need it to the limit of your ability, without violating these rules.

    – In total: treat all others as your family – and we all shall become one. One family. Not in our imaginations, but in practice. Out of many we shall become one.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-31 05:05:00 UTC