Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • I’M IN THIS FIGHT, NOT JUST FOR MY TRIBE, BUT FOR ALL OF HUMANITY I don’t really

    I’M IN THIS FIGHT, NOT JUST FOR MY TRIBE, BUT FOR ALL OF HUMANITY

    I don’t really care about race. I acknowledge our differences, and I write about our differences as a small number of differences in cognitive distributions. But race and racism doesn’t help me or anyone else solve any material problem. I know the white nationalist movement uses my work, but I am just as happy if EVERY nationalist movement uses my work, because it will make all of us happier if we do. (Because we can use trade policy to offset our differences in distributions, and within any nation we can use the norms appropriate for our distributions.)

    But bitching about other people’s evolutionary strategies is just gossip. It means nothing. It doesn’t fix anything. It doesn’t provide a political solution to the problem of prosperity, kin selection, beneficial evolution, and the ultimate achievement of mankind.

    So my objective is to provide solutions. And those solutions should assist all of us regardless of our race and tribe. Because all our races and tribes are stuck on this planet together. And as such, we need a way of cooperating, even if that way of cooperating is to peaceably choose not to cooperate.

    And Truth is enough. If we eliminate deceit from the public discourse, and eliminate theft from the public trough, then that will force the outcome you probably desire.

    But I will not engage in racial gossip. I am just as interested in helping Africans, Asians, and Indonesians, achieve liberty and prosperity as I am my own people.

    We had enough of this damage done by the Enlightenment. And I just want to fix it for everyone.

    OK?

    Good. So I support nationalism. All of it. For everyone. Becuase the family defeats the corporation as a means of human reproductive cooperation.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-03 06:01:00 UTC

  • Universal Grammars of Action and Experience

    [I] think that any set of symbols in any form, capable of reconstructing the requisite experience of reality allows for some degree of truth communication between humans, superhumans, human-made-machines, and if they exist, aliens capable of action and communication.

    I have a hard time imagining that a basic instruction set is not accessible to any sentient creature capable of acting in reality. That’s because most of what we wish to communicate is state change, and I can easily see a universal grammar of state change in the physical world, just as easily as I can see a universal grammar of mathematical operations. Actions produce state changes.

    What I can’t see is a universal grammar of subjective experience. It is hard enough to communicate across cultures and languages. I can see “in my interests” and “against my interests” as well as the plural “our interests”. It appears to be possible to create a universal grammar of emotion among earth’s creatures, because it is a very simple thing. So maybe a universal grammar is possible (now that I think about it, I think I might be able to do it.) (Damn…. I just gave myself more work to do.)

  • Universal Grammars of Action and Experience

    [I] think that any set of symbols in any form, capable of reconstructing the requisite experience of reality allows for some degree of truth communication between humans, superhumans, human-made-machines, and if they exist, aliens capable of action and communication.

    I have a hard time imagining that a basic instruction set is not accessible to any sentient creature capable of acting in reality. That’s because most of what we wish to communicate is state change, and I can easily see a universal grammar of state change in the physical world, just as easily as I can see a universal grammar of mathematical operations. Actions produce state changes.

    What I can’t see is a universal grammar of subjective experience. It is hard enough to communicate across cultures and languages. I can see “in my interests” and “against my interests” as well as the plural “our interests”. It appears to be possible to create a universal grammar of emotion among earth’s creatures, because it is a very simple thing. So maybe a universal grammar is possible (now that I think about it, I think I might be able to do it.) (Damn…. I just gave myself more work to do.)

  • Can The Truth Be A Commons?

    (Interesting)

    —“Truth telling is commons, but truth is not commons?”—

    [L]et me state this clearly:

    “The act of habituating truth-telling as both a normative behavior and skill is an expensive normative commons (asset) for a population to construct.” 1) How does truth telling exist? The commons of truth telling exists as both demonstrated habit, and in the institutional means for its inter-temporal and intergenerational persistence: testimony, jury and law. 2) How does truth exist? I put it this way: that information can be treated as a commons, and we can protect the informational commons just as we do every other commons both physical and normative. So when we propose the statement ‘is the truth a commons?’ we are stuck with whether can we treat the truth as a commons. That requires we define truth, which as far as I know, can consist only of the extant history of truthfully constructed statements. If we protected those statements, then that’s not logical. Because we do not in fact know whether they are true, only that they are truthfully constructed. 3) So our only choice then is to require that only truthful statements enter into the commons, and then let the best surviving statements rise and the lesser fall. Just as we require only non-harmful products enter into the market for goods and services and allow them to rise and fall. There is no truth that can exist as a commons. There can exist only truthfully constructed statements. And we cannot protect those statements since it’s counter-productive. We can only prohibit ‘polluting’ them like all other commons. Cheers. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.

  • Can The Truth Be A Commons?

    (Interesting)

    —“Truth telling is commons, but truth is not commons?”—

    [L]et me state this clearly:

    “The act of habituating truth-telling as both a normative behavior and skill is an expensive normative commons (asset) for a population to construct.” 1) How does truth telling exist? The commons of truth telling exists as both demonstrated habit, and in the institutional means for its inter-temporal and intergenerational persistence: testimony, jury and law. 2) How does truth exist? I put it this way: that information can be treated as a commons, and we can protect the informational commons just as we do every other commons both physical and normative. So when we propose the statement ‘is the truth a commons?’ we are stuck with whether can we treat the truth as a commons. That requires we define truth, which as far as I know, can consist only of the extant history of truthfully constructed statements. If we protected those statements, then that’s not logical. Because we do not in fact know whether they are true, only that they are truthfully constructed. 3) So our only choice then is to require that only truthful statements enter into the commons, and then let the best surviving statements rise and the lesser fall. Just as we require only non-harmful products enter into the market for goods and services and allow them to rise and fall. There is no truth that can exist as a commons. There can exist only truthfully constructed statements. And we cannot protect those statements since it’s counter-productive. We can only prohibit ‘polluting’ them like all other commons. Cheers. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.

  • CAN THE TRUTH BE A COMMONS? (Interesting) —“Truth telling is commons, but trut

    CAN THE TRUTH BE A COMMONS? (Interesting)

    —“Truth telling is commons, but truth is not commons?”—

    Let me state this clearly:

    “The act of habituating truth-telling as both a normative behavior and skill is an expensive normative commons (asset) for a population to construct.”

    How does truth telling exist?

    The commons of truth telling exists as both demonstrated habit, and in the institutional means for its inter-temporal and intergenerational persistence: testimony, jury and law.

    How does truth exist?

    I put it this way: that information can be treated as a commons, and we can protect the informational commons just as we do every other commons both physical and normative.

    So when we propose the statement ‘is the truth a commons?’ we are stuck with whether can we treat the truth as a commons.

    That requires we define truth, which as far as I know, can consist only of the extant history of truthfully constructed statements. If we protected those statements, then that’s not logical. Because we do not in fact know whether they are true, only that they are truthfully constructed.

    So our only choice then is to require that only truthful statements enter into the commons, and then let the best surviving statements rise and the lesser fall. Just as we require only non-harmful products enter into the market for goods and services and allow them to rise and fall.

    There is no truth that can exist as a commons. There can exist only truthfully constructed statements. And we cannot protect those statements since it’s counter-productive. We can only prohibit ‘polluting’ them like all other commons.

    Cheers.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-01 14:58:00 UTC

  • Q&A: WHAT IS THE INFLUENCE OF LANGUAGE ON CIVILIZATION. (worth repeating) [I]n a

    Q&A: WHAT IS THE INFLUENCE OF LANGUAGE ON CIVILIZATION.

    (worth repeating)

    [I]n a word, ‘profound’. But thanks to Paul Ba’s advice, I need to start with a word of caution.

    But my point of view is scientific and critical, rather than meaningful. Linguists care about the positive (or they wouldn’t study linguistics) and I care about the negatives: science and law. I don’t think we can improve on trial and error. I think we can only improve on testimony.

    When we negotiate to come to agreement we seek positive affirmations of meaning. These affirmations signal to one another that our interactions might be fruitful.

    When we seek to prevent error, bias and criminality, then we seek to constrain our utterances to those statements that are free of error, bias and criminality.

    This conversation is another example of the obverse / inverse framing that I’m using. If you want to convey meaning, you have one set of preferences, and if you want to prevent error, imagination, wishful thinking, cognitive bias, and deception from utterances you view the world through different eyes.

    We can use language to load, frame and overload. Languages themselves consist of frames, loadings and overloadings. In fact there are few words in any language that are not loaded, framed and overloaded: our most basic statements of operations (‘run’), existence (“there”) and perception (‘fast’). They constitute our most basic 300 words or so. Grammar itself frames by being more informationally complete (english and german) or less informationally complete (Chinese). Loading and framing in Language has profound impact on man’s minds. When we say the word ‘culture’ we are usually speaking about language, tradition, myth, and ritual. Traditions, myths and rituals contain heavy loading and framing and determine our most basic metaphysical value judgments. These metaphysical value judgements provide decidability where we assume pre-cognitively, by subconscious association, necessity or morality, where in actuality, we are merely providing some decidability that suited, at one time, some communication strategy, reproductive strategy, normative strategy, or other. (gender in french, romance in Italian – both of which we know the origins of: virgin worship in pre-christian times in France, and the effect of the troubadour movement in Italy.) So just as our genes get stuck at certain states because they cannot eliminate just ignore content, our languages get stuck at certain states and we just work past content we no longer find meaningful (french feminine references to nature). Some of these evolutionary records in language are helpful (martial germanic languages are truthful) and some evolutionary records are harmful (anything and everything in Chinese language is a burden). But worse, some framings are good (correspondence) and some are not (arabic respect without earning it, and fantasy of an extant complete truth).

    So language is a bit like wetware-programming. There are things in the grammar(organization) and functions (meaning of terms) and sometimes in the structure of words (alphabets or pictograms) that help or hinder us.

    German is perhaps the best language. I have to work on this a bit more. But others have said it in the past. German is loaded pretty heavily at this point with some bad things also: psychologizing of a sort. English is the language of science and it’s being progressively destroyed by progressives. Which is why I want to fix it.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-01 03:52:00 UTC

  • Q&A: “Is The Soul Property?”

    Q&A: “Curt, What do you say about soul? And its relation to property?” – Mahmoud B. [Y]our indisputable Property is that which you act to obtain without forcing involuntary transfers upon others. Meaning: without {violence,theft, fraud, suggestion, obscurantism, omission, indirection (externality), free riding, socializing losses and privatizing commons, conspiracy, conversion, immigration, war, conquest, and genocide.}

    • You may act to construct your life.
    • You may act to construct your kin.
    • You may act to construct cooperative relations.
    • You may act to construct your reputation.
    • You may act to construct private property
    • You may act to construct common physical property.
    • You may act to construct normative property (by forging opportunity)
    • You may act to construct institutional property (by bearing costs of such things as military service, jury duty, emergency services, and ‘policing’ the preservation of life and property.)

    Your soul, if you believe in such things, and act as if you believe in such things, is, like reputation, something you must constantly bear costs to maintain. As such since you have born costs for both physical and normative constructs, and have done so morally – without the imposition of costs upon others – they are by definition your property. EXISTENCE Now, the manner in which your soul may or may not exist is somewhat challenging, because it can only knowingly exist as an analogy: a form of anthropomorphization of the record of one’s actions recorded in memories of people, physical marks on reality, and the long term consequences of events in the physical world. In this sense your ‘soul’ good or ill, does persist, just as the interaction of molecule of water affects all those around it. (the theory that water has memory is a useful analogy.) So for those who wish to preserve the traditional behavior and traditional anthropomorphism in a manner that we can say may or may not be scientific, we can suggest that primitive man intuits his soul as his thoughts and actions, just as we intuit the persistence of our genes through reproduction. To take it further, we can (and we will very likely never disprove this so it’s useful for religious folk), we can work with what is called quantum mysticism. That is, that your thoughts take place in physical space and time and affect the universe around you. So even your thoughts affect the universe. The thing is, the concept of a soul (an accounting of your life) is a useful one. It seems to produce good outcomes. [Y]ou should not take this argument as terribly firm support for monotheism, but as a purely normative exercise in the economically beneficial results of providing an intuitive means of behavioral accounting in which individuals can resist cooperating with others on matters of ill intent under the correct presumption that the consequences of thought and action are kaleidic and infinite, and that one cannot be forced for any reason into immoral actions (those that impose costs upon others property.) Not all of us are above 125 in intelligence, and we require such analogies for both pedagogical purposes and for use by those who cannot grasp either rational or scientific arguments. The same is true for ethics. We need virtue (imitative), rule, and outcome based ethics, because we have young and simple, adult but not wise, and wise and experienced people in the world. We are unequal. As unequals we need unequal tools. I hope this helps you. As far as I know this argument will survive all current criticism. Existentially, your soul does exist as a record of your actions in the universe, and primitive man could not articulate such ideas. If you want to get into reincarnation then I cna’t help you. Neither can the Dali Lama. He knows it’s a great argument because it is untestable. As you may see, I am trying to provide a means of reformation to the main religions while at the same time undermining those parts of religion that are false, lies, or harmful. But I am not hostile to religion: myth and ritual. Personal religion is a good thing (having been near death at least three times myself). I hope that this answered your question. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.

  • Q&A: “Is The Soul Property?”

    Q&A: “Curt, What do you say about soul? And its relation to property?” – Mahmoud B. [Y]our indisputable Property is that which you act to obtain without forcing involuntary transfers upon others. Meaning: without {violence,theft, fraud, suggestion, obscurantism, omission, indirection (externality), free riding, socializing losses and privatizing commons, conspiracy, conversion, immigration, war, conquest, and genocide.}

    • You may act to construct your life.
    • You may act to construct your kin.
    • You may act to construct cooperative relations.
    • You may act to construct your reputation.
    • You may act to construct private property
    • You may act to construct common physical property.
    • You may act to construct normative property (by forging opportunity)
    • You may act to construct institutional property (by bearing costs of such things as military service, jury duty, emergency services, and ‘policing’ the preservation of life and property.)

    Your soul, if you believe in such things, and act as if you believe in such things, is, like reputation, something you must constantly bear costs to maintain. As such since you have born costs for both physical and normative constructs, and have done so morally – without the imposition of costs upon others – they are by definition your property. EXISTENCE Now, the manner in which your soul may or may not exist is somewhat challenging, because it can only knowingly exist as an analogy: a form of anthropomorphization of the record of one’s actions recorded in memories of people, physical marks on reality, and the long term consequences of events in the physical world. In this sense your ‘soul’ good or ill, does persist, just as the interaction of molecule of water affects all those around it. (the theory that water has memory is a useful analogy.) So for those who wish to preserve the traditional behavior and traditional anthropomorphism in a manner that we can say may or may not be scientific, we can suggest that primitive man intuits his soul as his thoughts and actions, just as we intuit the persistence of our genes through reproduction. To take it further, we can (and we will very likely never disprove this so it’s useful for religious folk), we can work with what is called quantum mysticism. That is, that your thoughts take place in physical space and time and affect the universe around you. So even your thoughts affect the universe. The thing is, the concept of a soul (an accounting of your life) is a useful one. It seems to produce good outcomes. [Y]ou should not take this argument as terribly firm support for monotheism, but as a purely normative exercise in the economically beneficial results of providing an intuitive means of behavioral accounting in which individuals can resist cooperating with others on matters of ill intent under the correct presumption that the consequences of thought and action are kaleidic and infinite, and that one cannot be forced for any reason into immoral actions (those that impose costs upon others property.) Not all of us are above 125 in intelligence, and we require such analogies for both pedagogical purposes and for use by those who cannot grasp either rational or scientific arguments. The same is true for ethics. We need virtue (imitative), rule, and outcome based ethics, because we have young and simple, adult but not wise, and wise and experienced people in the world. We are unequal. As unequals we need unequal tools. I hope this helps you. As far as I know this argument will survive all current criticism. Existentially, your soul does exist as a record of your actions in the universe, and primitive man could not articulate such ideas. If you want to get into reincarnation then I cna’t help you. Neither can the Dali Lama. He knows it’s a great argument because it is untestable. As you may see, I am trying to provide a means of reformation to the main religions while at the same time undermining those parts of religion that are false, lies, or harmful. But I am not hostile to religion: myth and ritual. Personal religion is a good thing (having been near death at least three times myself). I hope that this answered your question. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.

  • Will We See A Post-Religious Future?

    [G]iven that we see a decline in religiosity. 1) ON ARATIONAL VS RATIONAL VS EMPIRICAL ETHICS – Rationalism (rational ethics) increases as IQ increases – Religiosity (arational ethics) increases as IQ decreases. – Impulsivity and crime increase as IQ decreases. – There is a positive correlation between non-criminality and religion as IQ decreases. (The whole “love” thing works really) – All that differs in people’s behavior is the justification for their actions. – All people justify their intuitions, they do not rationally choose moral behaviors. – So whether we are indoctrinated into an arational, or a rational ethic is one of whether we are able to practice arational or rational justifications. – And conversely, we require both arational and rational ethics to provide for people capable of arational and rational justification. – Just as we require virtue (imitative), rational (rule based), and empirical (outcome based) ethics for children, adults, and elders.

    2) ON 20th CENTURY PSEUDOSCIENCE Marxism, Freudianism, Socialism, Postmodernism, Feminism, Keyensian economics, Cantorian sets, Misesian economics, libertine libertarianism, neo-conservatism, are all pseudoscientific nonsense. Much of religion is mythical and arational in content, but produces highly desirable results. The purpose of monotheism was the conduct of warfare by pre-state peoples. From iran/india (the same peoples at the time) forward that is the purpose of religion: power. Just as the purpose of the 19th and 20th century philosophies was to produce ideologies that assisted in the seizure of political power. So while I am happy we had a reformation. And I am happy that we had Darwin, I am unhappy that the intuitionistic and operationalist revolutions failed – and allowed pseudoscience (lies) to replace myths (allegories). I wouldn’t be too impressed with myself by thinking the era of religion had passed. Democratic secular socialist humanism is just as nonsensical (as stated) as is any of the main religions of the earth. Dressing the emperor in new clothes does nothing to change his identity. I have a vision. That vision is to create the truthful society just as we created the scientific society(the anglo enlightenment), and before it the rational society (the Hellenic enlightenment). And if we did that we would look at the pseudoscience, outright lies, and propaganda of the 20th century just as we look at the medieval period: an age of mysticism. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.