Form: Mini Essay

  • FOR MY NEW FRIENDS. THIS IS WHAT I DO. The subject of my writing is an analytic

    FOR MY NEW FRIENDS. THIS IS WHAT I DO.

    The subject of my writing is an analytic philosophy called Propertarianism, a tool for creating a value-free language for communicating conceptual, behavioral, moral, social, legal, political, economic, and group competitive strategies. In other words, Propertarianism is a formal language of social science.

    The purpose of this language is to both prevent the great political errors, lies, and deceptions, and to help us understand our feelings and ideas in scientific terms.

    Propertarianism is a way to say things which are true, but that many do not wish to be true. Every culture that has been transformed by an enlightenment (science) embodying errors, lies and deceptions that I want to correct.

    MY GOAL IS LIBERTY

    By ‘liberty’ I mean ‘choice’ — choice dependent upon manners, ethics, morals, and merit. Not choice dependent upon taking from others.

    MY SOLUTION IS MARKET GOVERNMENT

    I am against MAJORITARIAN democracy. But in favor of democratic production of common goods and services – where citizens vote for the commons that they want, not for corrupt politicians. The reasons are too complex for this post. But it is not an emotional, but scientific reason.

    MARKET GOVERNMENT NEEDS TESTS OF TRUTHFULNESS IN SOCIAL SCIENCES

    The problem in creating government that is honest is that we did not know how to test if laws and legislation were ‘true’ and therefore ‘scientific’, and therefore objectively ethical and moral. I produced this test of truthfulness. This test expands the scientific method into the social sciences -and unites biology, philosophy, morality and law into a single logical method. This method is called ‘testimonial truth’. And the philosophy of using this method is called ‘testimonialism’. The word to testify means that you have done diligence to ensure that you have spoken truthfully (not just honestly), and that you warranty (guarantee) that you have done that diligence.

    DEMONSTRATION OF THESE IDEAS

    All of my arguments demonstrate the failure of the enlightenment and the failures of majority democracy.

    IF I OFFEND YOU PLEASE UNDERSTAND THAT IT IS MY PURPOSE TO OFFEND YOUR INTUITIONS SO THAT YOU CAN SEE THE POSSIBILITY OF A VERY DIFFERENT WORLD.

    A world where governments are unable to engage in corruption and deceit. One in which we produce common property without representative politicians open to corruption.

    WE NEED TO CRITICIZE OURSELVES. THE REASON WE ARE PREYED UPON BY EVIL PEOPLE IS THE PERSON IN THE MIRROR HAS NOT STOPPED THEM.

    Sincerely

    Curt Doolittle

    (edited by D Frank Robinson )

    ————————————-original prior to edits————–

    FOR MY NEW FRIENDS

    I write write in an analytic philosophy called Propertarianism. The purpose of this language is to create a value-free (neutral) tool for communicating conceptual, behavioral, ethical, moral, social, legal, political, economic, and group competitive strategies.

    In other words Propertarianism is a formal language of social science.

    The purpose of this language is to both prevent the great political errors, lies, and deceptions, and to help us understand our feelings and ideas in scientific terms.

    When write here I very often say things that are true, but that we do not wish to be true. The reason is that I want to correct the errors, lies, and deceptions of the enlightenments – all of them, in every culture that has been transformed by an enlightenment (science).

    MY GOAL IS LIBERTY

    By ‘liberty’ I mean ‘choice’. But choice dependent upon manners, ethics, morals, and merit. Not choice dependent upon taking from others.

    MY SOLUTION IS MARKET GOVERNMENT

    I am against MAJORITY democracy. But in favor of Democratic production of common goods and services – where citizens vote for the commons that they want, not for corrupt politicians. The reasons are too complex for this post. But it is not an emotional, but scientific reason.

    BUT FOR MARKET GOVERNMENT WE NEED TESTS OF TRUTHFULNESS IN SOCIAL SCIENCES

    The problem in creating government that is honest is that we did not know how to test if laws and legislation were ‘true’ and therefore ‘scientific’, and therefore objectively ethical and moral. I produced this test of truthfulness. This test expands the scientific method into the social sciences -and unites biology, philosophy, morality and law into a single logical method. This method is called ‘testimonial truth’. And the philosophy of using this method is called ‘testimonialism’. The word to testify means that you have done diligence to ensure that you have spoken truthfully (not just honestly), and that you warranty (guarantee) that you have done that diligence.

    WHEN YOU READ OR HEAR MY CRITICISMS – IT”S ALWAYS TO DEMONSTRATE THESE IDEAS.

    All of my arguments are somehow connected with the failure of the enlightenment and the failures of majority democracy.

    SO IF I OFFEND YOU PLEASE UNDERSTAND THAT IT IS MY PURPOSE TO OFFEND YOUR INTUITIONS SO THAT YOU CAN SEE THE POSSIBILITY OF A VERY DIFFERENT WORLD.

    One where governments are unable to engage in corruption and deceit. One in which we produce common property without representative politicians open to corruption.

    I PREFER TO CRITICiZE OURSEVES. THE REASON WE ARE PREYED UPON BY EVIL PEOPLE IS THE PERSON IN THE MIRROR HAS NOT STOPPED THEM.

    Sincerely

    Curt Doolittle


    Source date (UTC): 2016-03-26 06:20:00 UTC

  • Why aren’t more philosophers entrepreneurs? There are many entrepreneurs and few

    Why aren’t more philosophers entrepreneurs? There are many entrepreneurs and few philosophers. Entrepreneurship and philosophy are time consuming activities. And honestly, contributing to philosophy is far harder than contributing to the economy via entrepreneurship. To combine entrepreneurship and philosphy requires selling books. Selling books for income requires writing books frequently. Philosophical problems are not solve with frequency, or in short time frames.

    Spinoza ground lenses and lived poorly and died young having the same asthma as I. I write software, live well and have outlived him despite the asthma. He spent his whole life writing a parsimonious two hundred pages.

    The university allows you to report your progress while teaching, to practice the art of lecture and distillation of ideas. And to capture the results of both in your books. And so the university provides the optimum environment for writing whatever you’re writing about.

    The question is wether writing in that environment leads you to conclusions and whether writing in the business environment leads you to different conclusions.

    It appears so.

    It also appears that it is far costlier and therefore less common to write philosophy while also working on entrepreneurship.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-03-26 03:18:00 UTC

  • The Answer: The Future of Religion

    (religion)
     
    [J]ust because your ancestors valued a particular comforting lie or falsehood is not a reason to perpetuate the lie or falsehood. We are comfortable now with suppressing lies with physical science where were were not so in the past.
     
    We are currently uncomfortable with suppressing lies in social science: ethics, politics, economics, religion, and war, but we will not be so uncomfortable in the future.
     
    I am almost certain that the gains from ending lies in social science will be as great as those from ending lies in physical science.
     
    But I suspect an even greater effort to preserve lies in social science than the effort to preserve lies in physical science.
     
    Why? Because the church had only the pulpit, which we eventually defeated with the press. But the Academy has the media, and we are not yet sure that the internet is as capable of defeating the lies of the academy as the book was in defeating the lies of the church.
     
    Both have had the same incentives: to perpetuate their income by the sale of forgiveness or indulgences, just as the academy sells the promise of prosperity and diplomas.
     
    The monetary incentives of the church and academy are the same.
     
    The customer base of the church and the academy are the same.
     
    The church sold mysticism for millennia.
     
    The academy has been selling pseudoscience for over a century.
     
    The way we end the academy’s lies is to defund it like we did the church. The way we defund it is through the same revolution that it took to defund the church.
     
    But if we merely shift the academy to something new, just as we shifted the church to the academy, we have only moved to a new problem rather than solving the problem.
     
    The answer is to reform the church and the academy so that they sell truths, not lies. Truths in physical science, truth in social science, truth in what is best called ‘spiritual science’: mindfulness.
     
    There are many ways to produce mindfulness: from stoic philosophy, to sport, to yoga, to meditation, to the piety and sacredness of commons and ritual, to the creation of arts. The human mind requires mindfulness without the constant peer feedback of the consanguinous tribe. The greater the division of knowledge and labor, the more important is mindfulness for the happiness of the human mind.
     
    So it is possible to construct a church, academy, and commons that produces truth in physical, truth in the social, and truth in the mind.
     
    We need no lies. There is no excuse for lies. Lies exist to profit only from the loss of others.
     
    We can sell truth rather than sell fraud.
     
    We can remake the west.
     
    Because it is these truths that were the original path of western civilization before the great lies were leashed upon us by the great liars of history.
     
    Science: truth in the physical.
    Nature: truth in the commons
    Law: truth in the market.
    Stoicism: truth in the mind.
     
    We are the people who invented truth.
    Truth is our religion.
    We can return to the truth.
     
    End the lies
    Remake man in the image of gods: truth.
     
    Curt Doolittle
    The Philosophy of Aristocracy
    The Propertarian Institute,
    Kiev, Ukraine
  • The Answer: The Future of Religion

    (religion)
     
    [J]ust because your ancestors valued a particular comforting lie or falsehood is not a reason to perpetuate the lie or falsehood. We are comfortable now with suppressing lies with physical science where were were not so in the past.
     
    We are currently uncomfortable with suppressing lies in social science: ethics, politics, economics, religion, and war, but we will not be so uncomfortable in the future.
     
    I am almost certain that the gains from ending lies in social science will be as great as those from ending lies in physical science.
     
    But I suspect an even greater effort to preserve lies in social science than the effort to preserve lies in physical science.
     
    Why? Because the church had only the pulpit, which we eventually defeated with the press. But the Academy has the media, and we are not yet sure that the internet is as capable of defeating the lies of the academy as the book was in defeating the lies of the church.
     
    Both have had the same incentives: to perpetuate their income by the sale of forgiveness or indulgences, just as the academy sells the promise of prosperity and diplomas.
     
    The monetary incentives of the church and academy are the same.
     
    The customer base of the church and the academy are the same.
     
    The church sold mysticism for millennia.
     
    The academy has been selling pseudoscience for over a century.
     
    The way we end the academy’s lies is to defund it like we did the church. The way we defund it is through the same revolution that it took to defund the church.
     
    But if we merely shift the academy to something new, just as we shifted the church to the academy, we have only moved to a new problem rather than solving the problem.
     
    The answer is to reform the church and the academy so that they sell truths, not lies. Truths in physical science, truth in social science, truth in what is best called ‘spiritual science’: mindfulness.
     
    There are many ways to produce mindfulness: from stoic philosophy, to sport, to yoga, to meditation, to the piety and sacredness of commons and ritual, to the creation of arts. The human mind requires mindfulness without the constant peer feedback of the consanguinous tribe. The greater the division of knowledge and labor, the more important is mindfulness for the happiness of the human mind.
     
    So it is possible to construct a church, academy, and commons that produces truth in physical, truth in the social, and truth in the mind.
     
    We need no lies. There is no excuse for lies. Lies exist to profit only from the loss of others.
     
    We can sell truth rather than sell fraud.
     
    We can remake the west.
     
    Because it is these truths that were the original path of western civilization before the great lies were leashed upon us by the great liars of history.
     
    Science: truth in the physical.
    Nature: truth in the commons
    Law: truth in the market.
    Stoicism: truth in the mind.
     
    We are the people who invented truth.
    Truth is our religion.
    We can return to the truth.
     
    End the lies
    Remake man in the image of gods: truth.
     
    Curt Doolittle
    The Philosophy of Aristocracy
    The Propertarian Institute,
    Kiev, Ukraine
  • ON “SPIRITUALISM” Spiritualism is necessary. The feeling of ‘spirituality’ is wh

    ON “SPIRITUALISM”

    Spiritualism is necessary. The feeling of ‘spirituality’ is what we call the pack response (submission to the pack). It is a sort of euphoria that allows us to relax, abandon the self, and submit to the will of the the pack (become part of the pack mind).

    Developing sentience (self awareness) was an advantage but we retain the brain stem that wants to feel the pack.

    It is this process that mindfulness puts under our control.

    It is unhealthy to demand humans practice reason, sentience, self awareness, and individualism at all times. We did not evolve for it. We may never evolve for it.

    The question is how we solve it. We can solve it thru lies or thru truth.

    The fact that we solved it through error, lie and accident does not mean that we cannot solve it truthfully.

    Church works. Concerts work. Sports work. Even the academy works a bit. That is why they work. Because we still long once and a while to hail to the throng. To run with the pack, to sleep in the den, to huddle under a tree or in the sun with the pack. TO SHARE THE PROBLEM OF AWARENESS AND CALCULATION. To know we are safe and insured. Likewise we have many parts of our brain that do not recieve that stimulation and it is very difficult to discipline those neurons. Various ritualistic processes provide the ‘stimulation of the pack’ and give our self awareness a break – relaxation.

    If we do not have it we are required to process all information alone, without the feedback of the pack, and it overwhelms us.

    LIES ARE FAMILIAR BUT NOT NECESSARY


    Source date (UTC): 2016-03-25 06:38:00 UTC

  • THE ANSWER (religion) Just because your ancestors valued a particular comforting

    THE ANSWER

    (religion)

    Just because your ancestors valued a particular comforting lie or falsehood is not a reason to perpetuate the lie or falsehood. We are comfortable now with suppressing lies with physical science where were were not so in the past.

    We are currently uncomfortable with suppressing lies in social science: ethics, politics, economics, religion, and war, but we will not be so uncomfortable in the future.

    I am almost certain that the gains from ending lies in social science will be as great as those from ending lies in physical science.

    But I suspect an even greater effort to preserve lies in social science than the effort to preserve lies in physical science.

    Why? Because the church had only the pulpit, which we eventually defeated with the press. But the Academy has the media, and we are not yet sure that the internet is as capable of defeating the lies of the academy as the book was in defeating the lies of the church.

    Both have had the same incentives: to perpetuate their income by the sale of forgiveness or indulgences, just as the academy sells the promise of prosperity and diplomas.

    The monetary incentives of the church and academy are the same.

    The customer base of the church and the academy are the same.

    The church sold mysticism for millennia.

    The academy has been selling pseudoscience for over a century.

    The way we end the academy’s lies is to defund it like we did the church. The way we defund it is through the same revolution that it took to defund the church.

    But if we merely shift the academy to something new, just as we shifted the church to the academy, we have only moved to a new problem rather than solving the problem.

    The answer is to reform the church and the academy so that they sell truths, not lies. Truths in physical science, truth in social science, truth in what is best called ‘spiritual science’: mindfulness.

    There are many ways to produce mindfulness: from stoic philosophy, to sport, to yoga, to meditation, to the piety and sacredness of commons and ritual, to the creation of arts. The human mind requires mindfulness without the constant peer feedback of the consanguinous tribe. The greater the division of knowledge and labor, the more important is mindfulness for the happiness of the human mind.

    So it is possible to construct a church, academy, and commons that produces truth in physical, truth in the social, and truth in the mind.

    We need no lies. There is no excuse for lies. Lies exist to profit only from the loss of others.

    We can sell truth rather than sell fraud.

    We can remake the west.

    Because it is these truths that were the original path of western civilization before the great lies were leashed upon us by the great liars of history.

    Science: truth in the physical.

    Nature: truth in the commons

    Law: truth in the market.

    Stoicism: truth in the mind.

    We are the people who invented truth.

    Truth is our religion.

    We can return to the truth.

    End the lies

    Remake man in the image of gods: truth.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute,

    Kiev, Ukraine


    Source date (UTC): 2016-03-25 04:37:00 UTC

  • Western women have almost always dressed fashionably when possible, (a) because

    Western women have almost always dressed fashionably when possible, (a) because of higher sexual dimorphism and slightly lower sexual maturity, and greater feminine beauty because of it, (b) because we have had voluntary marriage for thousands of years, (c) because we delayed marriage for at least a thousand if not three thousand years, (d) because we view our women as ‘prizes’ and a demonstration of wealth. (e) because we have rarely had strong states and the strong can make such demonstrations and not fear them being taken by warlords (f) because women have had PROPERTY RIGHTS in the west for over a thousand years. And because (g) we have always had a higher respect for women than other civilizations – its pretty clearly a genetic bias, and we dont know why yet.

    It’s not a mystery why cultures dress the way they do. It’s not simply fashion. It’s signaling. It always has been and always will be.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-03-25 04:01:00 UTC

  • Philosophy: Unloaded Science vs Loaded Literature

    (important piece on the form and content of philosophy) Testimony vs Literature Truth vs Experience Criticism vs Free Association Survival vs Creativity Deflationary vs Conflationary Clarify vs Obscure Persuasion vs Suggestion Decidability vs Opportunity Decrease Cost vs Increase Cost Save vs Spend Action vs Consumption Production vs Entertainment Science vs Art What is the difference between an action novel and a philosophical treatise? You are carried into the plot, vs the plot is carried into you. But they are both literature. That is all. A recipe is different from a work of literature. Science(Testimony) consists of the methods by which we create recipes and name them. Literature the methods by which we create experiences. Communication, like violence, is a resource put to good or ill. Whether we create fully informed, productive, warrantied voluntary exchanges free of externalities – meaning moral communication – or whether we create suggestion, unproductive or harmful, unwarranted, involuntary transfers full of externalities – meaning immoral communication. And the fact remains that it is very difficult to communicate immorally with recipes, it is very easy to communicate immorally with literature. Yet given that experience is our native language – one which evolved prior to reason – pedagogy is often best performed with loaded, framed, and repeated (overloaded) analogy. There is a place for truth. There is a place for pedagogy. There is a place for creativity The question we must ask of some philosophers is whether there is a place for immoral suggestion rather than moral communication. And whether they transfer by moral or immoral means, immoral or moral ends. The philosophy of the west is natural law, common law, testimony, jury, universal standing and rule of law (universal applicability). Science is the art of improving one’s testimony. Everything else is merely literature. The question is whether that literature conveys moral or immoral content, and does so morally or immorally. And from that perspective, philosophers have a very checkered past. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Philosophy: Unloaded Science vs Loaded Literature

    (important piece on the form and content of philosophy) Testimony vs Literature Truth vs Experience Criticism vs Free Association Survival vs Creativity Deflationary vs Conflationary Clarify vs Obscure Persuasion vs Suggestion Decidability vs Opportunity Decrease Cost vs Increase Cost Save vs Spend Action vs Consumption Production vs Entertainment Science vs Art What is the difference between an action novel and a philosophical treatise? You are carried into the plot, vs the plot is carried into you. But they are both literature. That is all. A recipe is different from a work of literature. Science(Testimony) consists of the methods by which we create recipes and name them. Literature the methods by which we create experiences. Communication, like violence, is a resource put to good or ill. Whether we create fully informed, productive, warrantied voluntary exchanges free of externalities – meaning moral communication – or whether we create suggestion, unproductive or harmful, unwarranted, involuntary transfers full of externalities – meaning immoral communication. And the fact remains that it is very difficult to communicate immorally with recipes, it is very easy to communicate immorally with literature. Yet given that experience is our native language – one which evolved prior to reason – pedagogy is often best performed with loaded, framed, and repeated (overloaded) analogy. There is a place for truth. There is a place for pedagogy. There is a place for creativity The question we must ask of some philosophers is whether there is a place for immoral suggestion rather than moral communication. And whether they transfer by moral or immoral means, immoral or moral ends. The philosophy of the west is natural law, common law, testimony, jury, universal standing and rule of law (universal applicability). Science is the art of improving one’s testimony. Everything else is merely literature. The question is whether that literature conveys moral or immoral content, and does so morally or immorally. And from that perspective, philosophers have a very checkered past. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • PHILOSOPHY: THE LITERATURE OF DECEIT? When you switch from the conduct of pedago

    PHILOSOPHY: THE LITERATURE OF DECEIT?

    When you switch from the conduct of pedagogy to science, justification to criticism, opportunity searching to error reduction, you see that philosophy has unjustifiably self congratulated itself quite a bit throughout history.

    And when you find the central problem of epistemology is not improvement of your own meagre ability to produce ideas, but the detection of deception in the extraordinary ability of the collective to produce a market of ideas, then you treat the philosophical discourse very differently.

    I have taken to assuming all philosophical statements are attempts at free riding, and that I must discover how they seek free riding.

    This has become my current view of philosophy.

    On the other hand it requires a catalog of human errors just as it requires a catalog of crimes, to practice the craft of prosecuting thought in the advancement of fraud.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-03-24 02:00:00 UTC