(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
Form: Mini Essay
-
Naturalism, Aristotelianism, Christianity, Stoicism and now Buddhism
[H]ere is the thing about Christianity: the extension of kinship love to non-kin and the extirpation of hatred from the human heart. Our people have lower sensitivity to (disgust for) out-groups anyway. But between our genetic bias as cold weather folk, christianity, chivalry, and the prohibition on cousin marriage, the west has evolved rapidly a high trust civilization – even if it has become partly to its detriment. Yes our mediterranean, hanseatic and nordic trade routes were helpful as well, since commercial cultures without out-group competition tend to have less reason to be mistrustful. Yes, our lack of genetic diversity helped quite a bit. Yes, as we’ve learned recently (to my excitement) it appears that the lower incidence of disease in the cold climate means lower barriers to association and trade. But our primary talent – martial epistemology – or truthfulness – would not be as useful without this christian openness. This preference for ‘error on the side of trust’. What christianity achieves through extension of kinship love, buddhism achieves through introspection, stoicism achieved through planning, focus, action, and review. These are three different methods of training the unquiet mind to quietly interact with the world, without fear. Westerners practice many religions: The nurturer (buddhism), the craftsman(stoicism), the merchant and politician (christianity), the warrior (the military), the scientist (Aristotle), the aesthete (Pagan nature worship). (and unfortunately, over the past century, the pseudoscientific state worshipper) We have always been a poly-spiritual people. We have always been and will likely remain pagans. Religions are tools. I know the value of a quiet mind: the absence of anxiety and fear. I know the (lost) value of the worship of nature: care of the commons. I know the importance of membership in the tribe: ceremonies and rituals. I know the value of spirituality (invoking the feeling of the safety of the pack). I know the value of solace in fear, hopelessness, suffering and death. But I also know that love, truth, and trust create prosperity. Because fear, deceit, and mistrust generate poverty. How do we distinguish a religion from a political system? Law rather than wisdom (advice). How do we distinguish a religion from a military system? conquest. How do we distinguish a good religion from a bad anything else? The relative economic status of its adherents. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine.
-
Naturalism, Aristotelianism, Christianity, Stoicism and now Buddhism
[H]ere is the thing about Christianity: the extension of kinship love to non-kin and the extirpation of hatred from the human heart. Our people have lower sensitivity to (disgust for) out-groups anyway. But between our genetic bias as cold weather folk, christianity, chivalry, and the prohibition on cousin marriage, the west has evolved rapidly a high trust civilization – even if it has become partly to its detriment. Yes our mediterranean, hanseatic and nordic trade routes were helpful as well, since commercial cultures without out-group competition tend to have less reason to be mistrustful. Yes, our lack of genetic diversity helped quite a bit. Yes, as we’ve learned recently (to my excitement) it appears that the lower incidence of disease in the cold climate means lower barriers to association and trade. But our primary talent – martial epistemology – or truthfulness – would not be as useful without this christian openness. This preference for ‘error on the side of trust’. What christianity achieves through extension of kinship love, buddhism achieves through introspection, stoicism achieved through planning, focus, action, and review. These are three different methods of training the unquiet mind to quietly interact with the world, without fear. Westerners practice many religions: The nurturer (buddhism), the craftsman(stoicism), the merchant and politician (christianity), the warrior (the military), the scientist (Aristotle), the aesthete (Pagan nature worship). (and unfortunately, over the past century, the pseudoscientific state worshipper) We have always been a poly-spiritual people. We have always been and will likely remain pagans. Religions are tools. I know the value of a quiet mind: the absence of anxiety and fear. I know the (lost) value of the worship of nature: care of the commons. I know the importance of membership in the tribe: ceremonies and rituals. I know the value of spirituality (invoking the feeling of the safety of the pack). I know the value of solace in fear, hopelessness, suffering and death. But I also know that love, truth, and trust create prosperity. Because fear, deceit, and mistrust generate poverty. How do we distinguish a religion from a political system? Law rather than wisdom (advice). How do we distinguish a religion from a military system? conquest. How do we distinguish a good religion from a bad anything else? The relative economic status of its adherents. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine.
-
CHRISTIANITY, STOICISM, BUDDHISM Here is the thing about Christianity: the exten
CHRISTIANITY, STOICISM, BUDDHISM
Here is the thing about Christianity: the extension of kinship love to non-kin and the extirpation of hatred from the human heart. Our people have lower sensitivity to (disgust for) out-groups anyway. But between our genetic bias as cold weather folk, christianity, chivalry, and the prohibition on cousin marriage, the west has evolved rapidly a high trust civilization – even if it has become partly to its detriment.
Yes our mediterranean, hanseatic and nordic trade routes were helpful as well, since commercial cultures without out-group competition tend to have less reason to be mistrustful.
Yes, our lack of genetic diversity helped quite a bit.
Yes, as we’ve learned recently (to my excitement) it appears that the lower incidence of disease in the cold climate means lower barriers to association and trade.
But our primary talent – martial epistemology – or truthfulness – would not be as useful without this christian openness. This preference for ‘error on the side of trust’.
What christianity achieves through extension of kinship love, buddhism achieves through introspection, stoicism achieved through planning, focus, action, and review. These are three different methods of training the unquiet mind to quietly interact with the world, without fear.
Westerners practice many religions: The nurturer (buddhism), the craftsman(stoicism), the merchant and politician (christianity), the warrior (the military), the scientist (Aristotle), the aesthete (Pagan nature worship). (and unfortunately, over the past century, the pseudoscientific state worshipper)
We have always been a poly-spiritual people. We have always been and will likely remain pagans. Religions are tools.
I know the value of a quiet mind: the absence of anxiety and fear.
I know the (lost) value of the worship of nature: care of the commons.
I know the importance of membership in the tribe: ceremonies and rituals.
I know the value of spirituality (invoking the feeling of the safety of the pack).
I know the value of solace in fear, hopelessness, suffering and death.
But I also know that love, truth, and trust create prosperity.
Because fear, deceit, and mistrust generate poverty.
How do we distinguish a religion from a political system? Law rather than wisdom (advice). How do we distinguish a religion from a military system? conquest. How do we distinguish a good religion from a bad anything else? The relative economic status of its adherents.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev Ukraine.
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-12 14:52:00 UTC
-
ARE THEY IN FACT RELIGIONS? OR ARE THEY MILITARY AND POLITICAL SYSTEMS (worth re
ARE THEY IN FACT RELIGIONS? OR ARE THEY MILITARY AND POLITICAL SYSTEMS
(worth repeating)
ISLAM: Islam is a (destructive) military system of perpetual conquest masquerading as a religion. they have weaponized reproduction, raiding, parasitism, and ignorance (static truth), and every muslim nation is harmed by its presence.
JUDAISM Judaism is a (parasitic) legal system masquerading as a religion and political system. It is neither. Every host nation is harmed by its presence.
MARXISM. Marxism was a (parasitic) religion masquerading as a political system, constructed from obscurantism and pseudoscience. Every host nation was not only harmed but the subject of vast murder and genocide, and imposed vast costs on the rest of mankind.
CHRISTIANITY Christianity is a (constructive) ethical and moral system which is what we comprehend in the west as the purpose of a religious system. In other words we have a cognitive bias in the west to classify religions by their signage rather than by their functions.
BUDDHISM. Buddhism is a personal philosophy if not a mental training exercise required of all humans in post tribal life, masquerading as a religion. Stoicism is to buddhism what philosophy is to religion. It was a tragic loss. So buddhism is the sort of silly version that remains.
HINDUISM Hinduism is a mythological religion that is so pervasive as to nearly totally disconnect humans from existential reality so that they can tolerate bad weather, overpopulation, and near starvation.
The easiest way to solve the constitutional problem is to classify a religion as christians classify a religion, which means that only christianity, buddhism and hinduism survive as de facto religions.
Any religion incompatible with Natural Law (the law of christianity and the west) is not a religion, but a political system, or a military system, both of which are means of conquest.
RELIGION MAY PROVIDE WISDOM AND ALLEGORY BUT IT MAY NOT CLAIM TRUTH OR LAW.
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-12 06:29:00 UTC
-
Mises, Popper and Rothbard were half-right. Popper was saved because libertarian
Mises, Popper and Rothbard were half-right.
Popper was saved because libertarians didn’t use him as a vehicle for heaping undue praise, or pseudoscientific justificationism. Rothabardians damaged Mises so much that he is almost impossible to recover except by grouping him with Poincare, Brouwer and Bridgman as the people who failed to construct existential testing: operationalism.
Popper makes it half way to operationalism by correctly identifying scientific criticism but not operationalism (scientific operationalism). Then getting stuck in falsificationism.
Mises tries with praxeology to construct economic operationalism. Gets stuck in praxeology trying to state that something is true or not versus whether something is false or not.
The Legal profession struggles with strict construction and textualism (legal operationalism) – and I am not so sure why that movement failed like the other disciplines.
No one in the social sciences or philosophy creates moral or political operationalism – possibly because it would have to come from law or economics.
So this is the great philosophical failure of the 20th century. Why?
Probability and Statistics, Set Theory, The Philosophy of Language.
Attempts to abandon action. These are means of complex free association, not means of truth finding.
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-11 10:47:00 UTC
-
THE COURTS ARE FAR BETTER THAN YOU THINK. Well, you know, ***courts are not free
THE COURTS ARE FAR BETTER THAN YOU THINK.
Well, you know, ***courts are not free of deceit, wishful thinking, stupidity, bias, and error for the simple reason that they are populated by people.*** That is the virtue of the jury and judge system. Twelve jurors reduces the probability of rendering idiocy dramatically.
I have nothing but burning hatred for the federal government, and I think that the rule of law has been destroyed by the democratic legislature, the tyrannical presidency, judicial activism, judicial and review.
But I have a little more faith in my fellow americans, that if provided with the tools of acquittal, nullification, and conviction, and the the simplicity of Natural Law, that they will render a great judgement under all but the most extreme circumstances. And should judges be allowed if not required to specialize even extreme circumstances would improve. And if judges could be chosen rather than assigned then that would improve further. This would create a market for judges. Appeals would manage the problem of whether rule of law was violated or not.
I find that many laws the judges are asked to enforce – credit law, family law, regulatory fines and costs, and other bits of nonsense – are objectively immoral. But if judges were given strict construction, and natural law, and nothing could override this but contract, then I think that all would be fine.
Judges and the law are not so much the problem as the ability of the state to legislate and regulate as an insurer of last resort over the objections of the people who are regulated.
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-11 10:09:00 UTC
-
Restoring the Dimension (Property) of Action to Philosophy
[T]he loss of the dimension of action from philosophy due to the invasion of platonism and religion is the reason for two millennia of limited progress. I suspect at first this was a linguistic limitation of early languages, combined with the history of animism, plus … one thing that is obvious to me… that operational language is expensive. Not just in words, but in the number of subset searches you must perform to convey an idea. So truth places a much higher burden on us until we develop a symbolic language for it that shortens the burden on us. Just in my lifetime I perceive the difference in the metaphysical content of our language only half of which (science and probability) is beneficial, while the other half (high time preference, individualistic immoralism) is tragic. As you go back, every generation it recedes into much clearer dialog using very clear references on one hand (enlightenment thought) then degrades into mystical thought. But if I must judge, I would say that we speak more superstitiously now than we did under the church. Anyway, I have tried to restore all dimensions to philosophical argument and unite philosophy, morality, law, and science, as well as psychology and social science, into a single universal language. Unfortunately that language is tedious. Just as I am sure science was tedious, and just as I am sure that removing animism, adding probability and evolutionary processes…. all were tedious. But each transformation made man better than he was before.
-
Restoring the Dimension (Property) of Action to Philosophy
[T]he loss of the dimension of action from philosophy due to the invasion of platonism and religion is the reason for two millennia of limited progress. I suspect at first this was a linguistic limitation of early languages, combined with the history of animism, plus … one thing that is obvious to me… that operational language is expensive. Not just in words, but in the number of subset searches you must perform to convey an idea. So truth places a much higher burden on us until we develop a symbolic language for it that shortens the burden on us. Just in my lifetime I perceive the difference in the metaphysical content of our language only half of which (science and probability) is beneficial, while the other half (high time preference, individualistic immoralism) is tragic. As you go back, every generation it recedes into much clearer dialog using very clear references on one hand (enlightenment thought) then degrades into mystical thought. But if I must judge, I would say that we speak more superstitiously now than we did under the church. Anyway, I have tried to restore all dimensions to philosophical argument and unite philosophy, morality, law, and science, as well as psychology and social science, into a single universal language. Unfortunately that language is tedious. Just as I am sure science was tedious, and just as I am sure that removing animism, adding probability and evolutionary processes…. all were tedious. But each transformation made man better than he was before.
-
SPEAKING THE TRUTH (reposted) You can claim you have done sufficient due diligen
SPEAKING THE TRUTH
(reposted)
You 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
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-11 08:31:00 UTC