[W]e spend a lot of time on logical fallacies, which assume mere error on the part of one’s opponent. We have begun to spend a lot of time on Cognitive Biases which affect one’s opponent. But both of these disciplines assume that the other party errs. When the problem of modern era, is not error but deception: lying. Social Pseudoscience, Keynesian Pseudoscience, postmodernism, rationalist obscurantism, propaganda and overloading, rallying and shaming, feminism, political correctness, religion and mysticism, democratic secular humanism (a pseudoscientific religion). All of these are possible not by error, not by bias, but by the organized use of language and media as a means of conducting theft by deception. The problem of our time is DECEPTION. How do we cleanse the commons of deceit? That’s why I work on Testimonialism (truth telling) and propertarianism (limits of human action) and propertarian liberalism (the market construction of commons.) End the century of lies.
Form: Mini Essay
-
IP: Why Should An Author Have The Right To Income On Ideas and Opinions
[W]ell, I am not sure we should unless we want to subsidize the production of more ideas and opinions than can be produced without subsidy. And the evidence is that we produce far more ideas and opinions than the market will bear. Propertarianism says the opposite: that you may not sell those ideas and opinions without contributing a percentage of the income to the author. We call this the Creative Commons license. Which is that creative products cannot have commercial use without compensation, but have free use for non-commercial use. This strategy does not violate the test of productivity or parasitism. This would have an enormous impact on the publishing industry, all of which would be for the better. One of the reasons, if not the most important reason that we have sh_t art, literature and cinema, is that the creative subsidy of copyright protection shifts the quality downward. This is what I object to, and I consider immoral. I do not consider individual cases of ip protection (subsidy generation) necessarily bad if they are to produce goods that the market cannot afford to. In other words, I consider IP an effective method with which a market can conduct off-book research and development at low cost and risk. In fact, I cannot think of a better combination of incentives than the private sector taking all the risk and paying all the cost of failure, and only profiting if they succeed. This is a great set of incentives.
-
IP: Why Should An Author Have The Right To Income On Ideas and Opinions
[W]ell, I am not sure we should unless we want to subsidize the production of more ideas and opinions than can be produced without subsidy. And the evidence is that we produce far more ideas and opinions than the market will bear. Propertarianism says the opposite: that you may not sell those ideas and opinions without contributing a percentage of the income to the author. We call this the Creative Commons license. Which is that creative products cannot have commercial use without compensation, but have free use for non-commercial use. This strategy does not violate the test of productivity or parasitism. This would have an enormous impact on the publishing industry, all of which would be for the better. One of the reasons, if not the most important reason that we have sh_t art, literature and cinema, is that the creative subsidy of copyright protection shifts the quality downward. This is what I object to, and I consider immoral. I do not consider individual cases of ip protection (subsidy generation) necessarily bad if they are to produce goods that the market cannot afford to. In other words, I consider IP an effective method with which a market can conduct off-book research and development at low cost and risk. In fact, I cannot think of a better combination of incentives than the private sector taking all the risk and paying all the cost of failure, and only profiting if they succeed. This is a great set of incentives.
-
A Very New Cut On Intellectual History
(draft) [S]o Zoroastrianism was constructed to divide the Persians and indians who were both southern indo european peoples. Then the Talmud was constructed as a lie to justify retention of property after the end of the babylonian conquest. THE REVOLUTION The greeks invent reason, truth, science, politics for the management of people at scale. The Romans, seeing the ‘verbalism’ (immorality) of the greeks, resist greek idealism and embrace practical and empirical means. THE RESISTANCE BY DECEIT Then judaism evolved as a means by which to justify parasitism upon host civilizations while maintaining group cohesion. Then christianity was constructed as a rebellion against the empire, that had deprived primitive people of their local status signals. Then the bible was constructed to manage the hordes through false promise now that production by slavery was no longer possible. Then the koran was constructed to unite the tribes and conquer the peninsula (and then the exhausted Byzantines and Sassanids, and North Africa, and then Spain. ) THE FAILURES AT RESTORATION The Carolingians failed to construct an economic and political order. although the trade routes from Italy to the Netherlands and then to the north sea peoples created incremental organic evolution. The Templars created the legal and credit system and were destroyed by the authoritarian church who was their debtor. The Hansa recreated the legal, credit, and trade system. But were out-competed by the territorial powers that largely adopted their methods. The development of the new world and colonies allowed the financing of the transition of the west to economic modernity. (despite that there was little long term benefit to western nations, and strangely enough quite a considerable benefit to colonies depending upon who colonized them.) THE RESTORATION OF TRUTH Then the anglos responded with the enlightenment, empiricism, and the restoration of truth (science). The french responded with … rousseuan pseudoscience and pseudo morality, as a means of creating the terror, and attempting to unify all of europe under their despotism. The germans respond with restating christian mysticism as kantian rationalism. And create a new vehicle for obscurantism. The Jews responded by converting the hansa/templar system to their advantage in the territorial wars between Britain and France (Napoleonic wars) creating the Rothschild and consequent systems of order creation by using our own capital stock and lending it back to us. Westerners responded with the nation-state, an attempt to construct professional bureaucracy, the gold standard, empire and the industrial revolution. Most importantly, american constitution and it’s somewhat failed attempt at natural law expressed as a formal logic of cooperation. Jews responded with an attack on the academy and polity by creating the great pseudosciences: Boazian Sociology, Marxist Economics and Politics, Freudian Psychology. All of which were constructed to universalize separatist judaism or justify hosting jewish separatism despite it’s parasitisms. This merely taking the argumentatitve innovations of the french and germans combining them with the same obscurantist ‘preaching’ technique used to distribute Christianity, except now using the power of the printing press. BRANCH : We branch now into various evolutions upon this new religion – faster innovation in the technologies of truth and falsehood. Branch 1 – Jewish Then the second wave: Popperian philsophy, Misesian Economics, Randian/Rothbardian Libertinism. (the half-failure/half-success) Then the third wave: straussian neo-conservativsm and expansionary militarism of the ‘new rome’. (the madness of power) Branch 2 – Neo Puritan Then the adoption of Keyneisan Economics as the new innumerate pseudoscience. and Rawlsian Ethics as the pseudo morality. Then the adoption of postmodern philosophy in academia. THE FAILED REACTION Mises in economics, Brouwer in Mathematics, Bridgman in Physics (science), Popper in philosophy, A HOST of authors in Law. And a total catastrophic absence in Politics since majoritarianism was still influential everywhere. RESTORATION: Science catches up with the deceit and starts to disprove it. The various cognitive scientists, and neurologists, are largely responsible for our reframing of jewish monopoly conformity to western distribution of talents and abilities. EO Wilson states that a synthesis of biology, morality, politics and economics – all the sciences – should be possible. Archaeologists and historians and evolutionary biologists in our social orders. Haidt, the empirical psychologists, and the anthropologists in the evolution of cooperation. SYNTHESIS Doolittle in Economics, Politics, Ethics, Sociology, Psychology, Epistemology and Metaphysics. In retrospect this is my view of the evolution of history as a competition between the different european tribes, most of which practice morality and one of which practices immorality. And the reason being that if we hold land we can construct moral rules because we must in order to create the commons of land holding. A parasitic people that does not need or cannot hold land need not create commons because they can use the host’s. THE CENTRAL SUBJECT OF OUR DISCOURSE MUST BE THE COMMONS NOT THE INDIVIDUAL. Law is for individuals. Individuals must be able to act in their interests, limited by the prohibition on parasitism. But policy must exist for the production of commons that perpetuates the family, kin, tribe, and nation, or else it is just a lie to justify conquest. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
-
A Very New Cut On Intellectual History
(draft) [S]o Zoroastrianism was constructed to divide the Persians and indians who were both southern indo european peoples. Then the Talmud was constructed as a lie to justify retention of property after the end of the babylonian conquest. THE REVOLUTION The greeks invent reason, truth, science, politics for the management of people at scale. The Romans, seeing the ‘verbalism’ (immorality) of the greeks, resist greek idealism and embrace practical and empirical means. THE RESISTANCE BY DECEIT Then judaism evolved as a means by which to justify parasitism upon host civilizations while maintaining group cohesion. Then christianity was constructed as a rebellion against the empire, that had deprived primitive people of their local status signals. Then the bible was constructed to manage the hordes through false promise now that production by slavery was no longer possible. Then the koran was constructed to unite the tribes and conquer the peninsula (and then the exhausted Byzantines and Sassanids, and North Africa, and then Spain. ) THE FAILURES AT RESTORATION The Carolingians failed to construct an economic and political order. although the trade routes from Italy to the Netherlands and then to the north sea peoples created incremental organic evolution. The Templars created the legal and credit system and were destroyed by the authoritarian church who was their debtor. The Hansa recreated the legal, credit, and trade system. But were out-competed by the territorial powers that largely adopted their methods. The development of the new world and colonies allowed the financing of the transition of the west to economic modernity. (despite that there was little long term benefit to western nations, and strangely enough quite a considerable benefit to colonies depending upon who colonized them.) THE RESTORATION OF TRUTH Then the anglos responded with the enlightenment, empiricism, and the restoration of truth (science). The french responded with … rousseuan pseudoscience and pseudo morality, as a means of creating the terror, and attempting to unify all of europe under their despotism. The germans respond with restating christian mysticism as kantian rationalism. And create a new vehicle for obscurantism. The Jews responded by converting the hansa/templar system to their advantage in the territorial wars between Britain and France (Napoleonic wars) creating the Rothschild and consequent systems of order creation by using our own capital stock and lending it back to us. Westerners responded with the nation-state, an attempt to construct professional bureaucracy, the gold standard, empire and the industrial revolution. Most importantly, american constitution and it’s somewhat failed attempt at natural law expressed as a formal logic of cooperation. Jews responded with an attack on the academy and polity by creating the great pseudosciences: Boazian Sociology, Marxist Economics and Politics, Freudian Psychology. All of which were constructed to universalize separatist judaism or justify hosting jewish separatism despite it’s parasitisms. This merely taking the argumentatitve innovations of the french and germans combining them with the same obscurantist ‘preaching’ technique used to distribute Christianity, except now using the power of the printing press. BRANCH : We branch now into various evolutions upon this new religion – faster innovation in the technologies of truth and falsehood. Branch 1 – Jewish Then the second wave: Popperian philsophy, Misesian Economics, Randian/Rothbardian Libertinism. (the half-failure/half-success) Then the third wave: straussian neo-conservativsm and expansionary militarism of the ‘new rome’. (the madness of power) Branch 2 – Neo Puritan Then the adoption of Keyneisan Economics as the new innumerate pseudoscience. and Rawlsian Ethics as the pseudo morality. Then the adoption of postmodern philosophy in academia. THE FAILED REACTION Mises in economics, Brouwer in Mathematics, Bridgman in Physics (science), Popper in philosophy, A HOST of authors in Law. And a total catastrophic absence in Politics since majoritarianism was still influential everywhere. RESTORATION: Science catches up with the deceit and starts to disprove it. The various cognitive scientists, and neurologists, are largely responsible for our reframing of jewish monopoly conformity to western distribution of talents and abilities. EO Wilson states that a synthesis of biology, morality, politics and economics – all the sciences – should be possible. Archaeologists and historians and evolutionary biologists in our social orders. Haidt, the empirical psychologists, and the anthropologists in the evolution of cooperation. SYNTHESIS Doolittle in Economics, Politics, Ethics, Sociology, Psychology, Epistemology and Metaphysics. In retrospect this is my view of the evolution of history as a competition between the different european tribes, most of which practice morality and one of which practices immorality. And the reason being that if we hold land we can construct moral rules because we must in order to create the commons of land holding. A parasitic people that does not need or cannot hold land need not create commons because they can use the host’s. THE CENTRAL SUBJECT OF OUR DISCOURSE MUST BE THE COMMONS NOT THE INDIVIDUAL. Law is for individuals. Individuals must be able to act in their interests, limited by the prohibition on parasitism. But policy must exist for the production of commons that perpetuates the family, kin, tribe, and nation, or else it is just a lie to justify conquest. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
-
Continental -> Postmodern Philosophy -vs- Analytic -> Testimonial Philosophy
ANALYTIC PHILOSOPHY -> POSTMODERN -> TESTIMONIAL PHILOSOPHY [Y]ou see all these damned lists I make? All these definitions I write? How I walk through long sequences of reasoning? How I’m pedantic about what information is present, and what operation alters what information? How I place great burden on your ability to maintain a chain of reasoning, instead of giving you shortcuts that rely upon what we call ‘meaning’ – existing analogies in your memory? This category of philosophy is called ANALYTIC PHILOSOPHY. Now technically analytic philosophy only requires set comparisons so that statements are internally testable, and non-contradictory. In other words “Does this appear to be true, and from the information stated in the words, can I say this is false?” Analytic philosophy attempts to incorporate scientific knowledge and their goal was to raise philosophy to a science – they failed. But analytic philosophy does not attempt to require basic research into creating sets of data. So analytic philosophy is extremely useful in the analysis and criticism of probabilistic data created in the age of probability and statistics. But it is not in and of itself useful for the solution of problems. There is nothing new therein. But TESTIMONIAL PHILOSOPHY (what I write) additionally more burdensome because it requires I make sequences of testable statements constructed out of operations, taking as few liberties as possible, so that we do not get to ‘fudge’ using ‘fluffy’ or ‘obscurantist’ language. I have categorized myself as an analytic philosopher, since the term post-analytic philosophy refers to postmodern philosophy – lying. But I am settling on Testimonial Philosophy as term that separates Modern Philosophy (‘meaningful’ post-mysticism), continental (rationalisms), analytic (testable statements), postmodern (‘deception’), and Testimonial (scientifically complete using all dimensions of criticism.) Religious philosophy takes very little scientific knowledge – if any. we can say it might even be a detriment. Continental philosophy requires only that we do not rely upon mysticism or the supernatural, only that what we say is meaningful, and possibly useful. It’s a philosophy of analogy and meaning. Post analytic philosophy takes this idea further by replacing the supernatural that was created by the divine, and saying we can create the supernatural by choice and repetition: the social construction of truth. Analytic philosophy attempts to convert philosophy into a science in the hope that we can something about the world from our statements and words. But while we can test for falsehood with analytic language, we cannot divine from our words what we do not already know when we make use of them. Testimonial philosophy attempts to unite all disciplines into a single language constructed only out of truthful statements that have survived criticism by all dimensions. Truth is what survives total criticism whether we desire it or not. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
-
Continental -> Postmodern Philosophy -vs- Analytic -> Testimonial Philosophy
ANALYTIC PHILOSOPHY -> POSTMODERN -> TESTIMONIAL PHILOSOPHY [Y]ou see all these damned lists I make? All these definitions I write? How I walk through long sequences of reasoning? How I’m pedantic about what information is present, and what operation alters what information? How I place great burden on your ability to maintain a chain of reasoning, instead of giving you shortcuts that rely upon what we call ‘meaning’ – existing analogies in your memory? This category of philosophy is called ANALYTIC PHILOSOPHY. Now technically analytic philosophy only requires set comparisons so that statements are internally testable, and non-contradictory. In other words “Does this appear to be true, and from the information stated in the words, can I say this is false?” Analytic philosophy attempts to incorporate scientific knowledge and their goal was to raise philosophy to a science – they failed. But analytic philosophy does not attempt to require basic research into creating sets of data. So analytic philosophy is extremely useful in the analysis and criticism of probabilistic data created in the age of probability and statistics. But it is not in and of itself useful for the solution of problems. There is nothing new therein. But TESTIMONIAL PHILOSOPHY (what I write) additionally more burdensome because it requires I make sequences of testable statements constructed out of operations, taking as few liberties as possible, so that we do not get to ‘fudge’ using ‘fluffy’ or ‘obscurantist’ language. I have categorized myself as an analytic philosopher, since the term post-analytic philosophy refers to postmodern philosophy – lying. But I am settling on Testimonial Philosophy as term that separates Modern Philosophy (‘meaningful’ post-mysticism), continental (rationalisms), analytic (testable statements), postmodern (‘deception’), and Testimonial (scientifically complete using all dimensions of criticism.) Religious philosophy takes very little scientific knowledge – if any. we can say it might even be a detriment. Continental philosophy requires only that we do not rely upon mysticism or the supernatural, only that what we say is meaningful, and possibly useful. It’s a philosophy of analogy and meaning. Post analytic philosophy takes this idea further by replacing the supernatural that was created by the divine, and saying we can create the supernatural by choice and repetition: the social construction of truth. Analytic philosophy attempts to convert philosophy into a science in the hope that we can something about the world from our statements and words. But while we can test for falsehood with analytic language, we cannot divine from our words what we do not already know when we make use of them. Testimonial philosophy attempts to unite all disciplines into a single language constructed only out of truthful statements that have survived criticism by all dimensions. Truth is what survives total criticism whether we desire it or not. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
-
THERE IS A REASON FOR INTERPRETIVE DIFFERENCES IN RELIGION —” find it very har
THERE IS A REASON FOR INTERPRETIVE DIFFERENCES IN RELIGION
—” find it very hard to believe that you will enable you to quickly and accurately interpret the Qu’ran when there appears to be much disagreement even within adherents to the religion”—
That’s because no amount of study will achieve anything other than self indoctrination and hypnosis into a series of internally inconsistent falsehoods.
Truth is non-contradictory. Thats’ how we know truth.
falsehood is contradictory. That’s how we know falsehood.
The fact that the koran requires ‘interpretation’ because it is internally inconsistent, is demonstration of the fact that it is falsehood.
This is one of the great ways in which falsehoods are spread. “there is great wisdom here’.
Then you have to just assume so many falsehoods but never reach the truth.
The reason is that there was never any truth.
The entire purpose was to get you to believe a series of falsehoods by the promise of future truth.
This is the secret to all religious lies.
The promise of eternal life is the same. If you believe all these falsehoods, then you will find immortality.
The promise of heaven is the same: if you believe all these falsehoods then you will find heaven.
The promise of reward: if you believe all these falsehoods then you will find virgins awaiting you.
The lie of the devil to faust and the lie of muhammed to muslims:
“I will give you stuff now if you give me something later” (faust).
“I will give you something later if you give me something now” (allah).
Whereas the entire purpose is to use you as a useful idiot to achieve immoral ends, and never pay you the reward you have been promised, because it does not exist and never did.
There are no gods that are not just stories. There are no heavens that are not just false promises. There is no good in islam.
The gnostics were right. Jehova was the devil and the Talmud, The Bible, and the Koran are his most successful works.
There is only one prophet who does not lie. His name is Aristotle.
And the one true god is truth itself.
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-14 06:58:00 UTC
-
ANALYTIC PHILOSOPHY -> POSTMODERN -> TESTIMONIAL PHILOSOPHY You see all these da
ANALYTIC PHILOSOPHY -> POSTMODERN -> TESTIMONIAL PHILOSOPHY
You see all these damned lists I make? All these definitions I write? How I walk through long sequences of reasoning? How I’m pedantic about what information is present, and what operation alters what information? How I place great burden on your ability to maintain a chain of reasoning, instead of giving you shortcuts that rely upon what we call ‘meaning’ – existing analogies in your memory?
This category of philosophy is called ANALYTIC PHILOSOPHY. Now technically analytic philosophy only requires set comparisons so that statements are internally testable, and non-contradictory. In other words “Does this appear to be true, and from the information stated in the words, can I say this is false?” Analytic philosophy attempts to incorporate scientific knowledge and their goal was to raise philosophy to a science – they failed. But analytic philosophy does not attempt to require basic research into creating sets of data.
So analytic philosophy is extremely useful in the analysis and criticism of probabilistic data created in the age of probability and statistics. But it is not in and of itself useful for the solution of problems. There is nothing new therein.
But TESTIMONIAL PHILOSOPHY (what I write) additionally more burdensome because it requires I make sequences of testable statements constructed out of operations, taking as few liberties as possible, so that we do not get to ‘fudge’ using ‘fluffy’ or ‘obscurantist’ language.
I have categorized myself as an analytic philosopher, since the term post-analytic philosophy refers to postmodern philosophy – lying.
But I am settling on Testimonial Philosophy as term that separates Modern Philosophy (‘meaningful’ post-mysticism), continental (rationalisms), analytic (testable statements), postmodern (‘deception’), and Testimonial (scientifically complete using all dimensions of criticism.)
Religious philosophy takes very little scientific knowledge – if any. we can say it might even be a detriment.
Continental philosophy requires only that we do not rely upon mysticism or the supernatural, only that what we say is meaningful, and possibly useful. It’s a philosophy of analogy and meaning.
Post analytic philosophy takes this idea further by replacing the supernatural that was created by the divine, and saying we can create the supernatural by choice and repetition: the social construction of truth.
Analytic philosophy attempts to convert philosophy into a science in the hope that we can something about the world from our statements and words. But while we can test for falsehood with analytic language, we cannot divine from our words what we do not already know when we make use of them.
Testimonial philosophy attempts to unite all disciplines into a single language constructed only out of truthful statements that have survived criticism by all dimensions.
Truth is what survives total criticism whether we desire it or not.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-14 06:45:00 UTC
-
Speaking the Truth
(reposted) [Y]ou can claim you have done sufficient due diligence to warrant your words against retribution. That is all you can claim. Otherwise you can speak to the air (yourself) but not to another. If you have done so you can err, or your information may be insufficient, or more information in the future may be uncovered. But we can never claim a thing is true if there is more information that can ever be presented that could falsify the claim. When we say something ‘is’ true. we CAN only say that we have done due diligence against it’s falsehood to the best or our knowledge and ability. If you say something ‘is’ true, you must also state how it exists, since ‘is’ refers to existence. We use the verb ‘to be’, especially in the form of ‘is’ to avoid describing how something exists – for rather complicated reasons – most of which are saving of effort, others are the high cost of changing between experience, intention, action, and observation – a grammatical cost that is quite high for us humans. What we evolved the verb “to be” to mean, is “I promise that you will come to the came conclusion by making the same observation” So to say ‘the cat is black’ is to say ‘if you observe this cat then it will appear black in color.’ This is the only thing you CAN mean, because it is the only existentially possible thing you could mean. We just habituate language out of experience and effort reduction, rather than follow rules of truthfulness of language, which is expensive to learn and speak. So that is what statements mean: they mean that you have made observations of something or other, translated that experience into analogies to experience, then spoken that to another who upon listening recreates the experience through language. He then fails to understand, or requires additional information until he does understand, and the additional information so that he does not err. So just as we accumulate sounds into words, we accumulate experiences generated by words into reconstructions of the speaker’s experience. You can convey truthfulness (tested), honesty(untested), error, bias, wishful thinking, deception and fantasy. But only you can create a statement so only you are responsible for the truthfulness of your statement. Your statement is not true. You speak truthfully(having tested), honestly(having not), in error, bias, wishful thinking, fantasy, or deception. That is all that is possible. Someone else finds your statement true when they reconstruct the same experience. So whey I say x=y I am saying that I promise you will also find that x=y if you choose to test this. This is all you CAN mean. Now you can say that you speak impulsively, honestly, or truthfully, or something in between. So that you cannot promise that the audience will also come to the same conclusion that you do. That is the difference between information (impulse), hypothesis(honesty), theory(truthfulness). So you can then only promise that what you’re offering is information, honesty, or truthfulness. But one must tell others which we are offering: information, honesty, or truthfulness. So correspondence exists when you have done due diligence on your observation, and when you consequent speech allows your audience to reconstructs your experience, and when they possess sufficient knowledge to do so. In other words the other person may lack the knowledge to reconstruct the experience of correspondence. This does not mean you cannot know a truth candidate. You can. Since you can reconstruct it. But you cannot test it without others with more knowledge. This is why science is a social construct. it is very hard to know the ‘ultimate’ most ‘parsimonious’ truthful statement because it is increasingly hard to possess sufficient information to know if it could produce greater correspondence. So in practicality, if you establish limits on your truthful statement such as “this works for tis circumstance’ then it is fairly easy. But if you say this works for N circumstances this gets increasingly difficult because there is more and more information that you can’t necessarily account for. You probably note by now that I do not rely upon ideal types, but force construction of both spectra and sequences when making arguments. And this is why I can make these statements. Because i have tested them for truthfulness before speaking them, and you on the other hand are speaking honestly, most likely because you do not yet know how to speak truthfully. Because it’s hard. I hope this was helpful to you. Affections. Curt