Form: Outline

  • SERIES: Recipes -> Operations Descriptions -> Experiences Analogy -> Literature

    SERIES:

    Recipes -> Operations

    Descriptions -> Experiences

    Analogy -> Literature

    Anthropomorphism -> Mythology

    Supernaturalism -> Theology

    Mysticism -> Psychosis (Dreaming)


    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-22 11:21:00 UTC

  • Law of Nature, Natural Law, Moral Literature, Mythology, Spirituality, & Dreams

    Law of Nature, Natural Law, Moral Literature, Mythology, Spirituality, & Dreams.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-17 10:38:00 UTC

  • ON THE LIMITS OF IP (PATENTS, TRADEMARKS, COPYRIGHTS) PATENTS It must be product

    ON THE LIMITS OF IP (PATENTS, TRADEMARKS, COPYRIGHTS)

    PATENTS

    It must be productive (fully informed, warrantied, voluntary).

    Therefore:

    a) IP must protect an investment (born cost), not squat an option: piss-on-a-fire-hydrant.

    b) IP cannot be used to deny a product to market, only to recoup an investment at some non-arbitrary multiple from a market.

    c) As a consequence it is hard to understand the grant of a monopoly rather than a commission. And it is hard to understand unquantified and long term IP.

    d) It is almost impossible to argue in favor of aesthetic ‘design patterns'(interpretive). It is quite easy to argue in favor of scientific, engineering, and software patterns(operational).

    e) it is human nature to retaliate against profiting from non-contribution (copying). This violates the test of productivity.

    In addition to productivity, grasping this subject requires an understanding full accounting (in this case opportunity costs),

    a) Polities form to decrease opportunity and transaction costs.

    b) Competition is the battle to seize opportunities created by density and property, and competition cannot form if one can squat opportunities (seize unhomesteaded property). Squatting opportunities is just a form of theft. Ergo IP that squats opportunities rather than recoups a risky investment is just theft by rent seeking.

    TRADEMARK

    A trademark is just another form of weight and measure that prevents misrepresentation. it is easy to argue for ‘design patterns’ (interpretive) limits on the use of them in a market – although it appears that enforcement is ridiculously overzealous because the law has no empirical means of measurement. This means of measurement is now available by the 2-3 second discretion test. Meaning that If a random group of people can glance at a pair of trademarks and not be be confused between or inferred by one another then empirically there is no confusion. Trademarks are very difficult to argue with.

    COPYRIGHTS

    Copyrights are the most questionable, although the market has solved this with the various Creative Commons and MIT etc licenses, which require consent for commercial use, but not for personal use. This preserves the demand for productivity for market participation.

    The central problem with copyrights is that they create opportunities for profitability in the ‘lower’ arts, producing low quality arts in volume and saturating the environment, the marketplace and the informational commons with low quality arts. The great works would not cease being produced by great artists if no money was available except by sponsorship. Conversely, the low arts would be impossible to fund. Revoking the total copyright on literary and artistic works, and defaulting to the creative commons instead, would collapse the hollywood market. Prohibiting dramatization of the lives of individuals would complete the suppression of their propagandism.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine


    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-15 11:31:00 UTC

  • THE LITERATURES acquisitionism(operationalism) -> … “selective” historical lit

    THE LITERATURES

    acquisitionism(operationalism) ->

    … “selective” historical literature ->

    … … aesthetic moral/philosophical literature ->

    … … … aesthetic religious/theological literature ->

    … … … … aesthetic occult/mythical literature ->

    … … … … … aesthetic dream state ‘stories’.

    I might be able to do the first three but the rest are beyond me. yet we require ALL of these literatures in concert in order to convey ideas to the entire body of people. Why? Because each of us relies on a different intuitionistic combination in order to empathize with the same idea.

    HOW DO WE DO THIS?

    I think it’s most useful if we correctly categorize each form of explanation. As far as I know as long as the ‘science’ holds (any statement is testable under acquisitionism (operationalism/science/truth) then the manner of its communication (and the inspiration provided by that form) is just a matter of ‘speaking in the language of the audience’.

    I can pretty much decompose any of the literatures if I work at it (and have someone explain their experiences/feelings to me). And if we can truth test it, then the method of communication holds.

    What one CANNOT do is perform DEDUCTIONS (argumetns) instead of EXPLANATIONS. In other words, ANY VIA-POSITIVA that survives VIA-NEGATIVA criticism is still ‘true’. But it’s not possible to ARGUE, only EXPLAIN by via-positiva.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-14 11:38:00 UTC

  • GENERAL RULES OF INTAKE (DEFENSE AGAINST PSEUDOSCIENCE) 1) VIA POSITIVA: If the

    GENERAL RULES OF INTAKE (DEFENSE AGAINST PSEUDOSCIENCE)

    1) VIA POSITIVA: If the consequence of any consumption are negative the consequences will be readily visible to the general public with in a generation.

    2) VIA NEGATIVA: There are no positive consequences of consumption only negative consequences of underconsumption or overconsumption. (you can over-consume or under-consume but you cannot improve state by selective consumption.)

    3) CONTENT IS NOT EQUAL TO STATE: Evidence of change in state is evidence of change in state. Evidence of change in content is not evidence of change in state.

    4) HUMAN SCALE OBSERVATION: (A) The evidence is that there is zero truth to all nutritional(chemical) pseudoscience unless it is visibly perceptible change in individuals in a common distribution. (B) The evidence is that there is nearly perfect truth to ‘stereotypical’ assessments of one another. (Stereotypes are the most accurate measure in social science.)

    SCIENCE I AM FAIRLY CERTAIN OF:

    1 – Pot decreases sperm count and therefore fertility.

    2 – Pot inhibits the formation of memories.

    3 – Pot causes reduction of neural pathways in development (natal, child, and young adulthood. This does not appear to be the case after reaching maturity.

    4 – Given the use of pot for self-medication, use of pot will correlate with many psychological disorders. This is the result of self-selection not causality.

    5 – Pot *appears* to exacerbate predispositions to depression, psychoses and in particular, schizophrenia – and recent research suggests that depression-schizophrenia is a spectrum of causally related phenomenon as are solipsism-autism, hetero-homosexuality, yet we do not yet know why other than (a) runs in families and (b) hints that it is an in-utero developmental cause.

    POSITIVES

    The positive consequences are those that suppress excitable and obsessive behavior in otherwise normal individuals (non-predisposed).

    COMPARISONS

    The use of marijuana vs alcohol can be compared to the difference between coffee, tobacco, and wine – which appears to have social consequences (coffee being a good one). Alcohol exacerbates opportunities for violence, and alcoholism, while pot produces soporific effects instead and is only a gateway for those predisposed to self-medicating. Tobacco produces calming and reduces hunger, but produces anxiety afterward, and cancer in the long term. The most serious consequences for pot and alcohol use are increasing hunger(hyperconsumption) and danger of operating motor vehicles and power equipment. Pot is currently the most cited cause of accidents under influence. and is 500% increase in risk, where alcohol varies from 300-700% increase in risk, except with younger drivers, where it can exceed 25000% increase in risk. So while alcohol peaks at higher risk, pot begins at slightly higher risk.

    IOW: If you operate on human-power-only when under the influence of pot, and do not have predispositions to mental illness, it’s probably the recreational exit of choice.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-14 11:27:00 UTC

  • THE MEANINGFUL THINKERS Plato ->(the evil) …………..-> (theologians) ……

    THE MEANINGFUL THINKERS

    Plato ->(the evil)

    …………..-> (theologians)

    …………………………………-> Kant

    …………………………………………….-> Continentals (post-theologians)

    …………………………………………………………………..-> Postmoderns

    ……….Aristotle -> (the good)

    ……………………-> (empiricists et al)

    ……………………-> Hume/Smith

    ………………………………………….-> Durkheim/Weber/Pareto

    …………………………………………………………………………………-> Hayek

    ……………………-> Machiavelli..-> (machiavellians)

    ……………………-> (scientists of all sorts)

    Seriously, in retrospect, you can eliminate everyone other than Aristotle/Machiavelli/Locke/Smith/Hume/Durkhiem/Weber/Pareto/Hayek in the study of man.

    (IMPORTANT)

    I am increasingly influenced by the Ying/Yang between those who generate opportunities (positives) and those who generate limits (negatives). And since all positives are hypothetical and only negatives testably true, it would make sense that over time, those who study limits would survive and those who envision opportunities decay with their times.

    This is probably one of the more useful insights in the study of the history of thought: positives are temporal and particular, and negatives are intertemporal and universal.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-02 10:20:00 UTC

  • The Functions of the Classes

    THE FUNCTIONS OF THE CLASSES (propertarian class theory) ——UPPER——- TOOL OF COERCION: FORCE – MILITARY, LAW, SHERIFF
    1) UPPER – PRODUCTION OF ORDER (SOVEREIGNTY) Rule Economyt (Aristocracy Profit from the Organization of Labor+K) ——MIDDLE——- TOOL OF COERCION – REMUNERATION – ORGANIZATION, DISTRIBUTION AND TRADE 2) UPPER MIDDLE – ORGANIZATION OF PRODUCTION (LIBERTY) Capitalism ( Organization of Labor+Knowledge ) 3) MIDDLE – ORGANIZATION OF TRANSFORMATION (FREEDOM) Market Economy ( Voluntarily Organized Labor+K) 4) LOWER MIDDLE (working) TRANSFORMATION (PARTICIPATION) Mixed Economy ( Voluntary + Involuntarily Organized Labor+K) ——LOWER——- TOOL OF COERCION: GOSSIP (RESISTANCE) – PRODUCTION, DIST. AND TRADE 5) LOWER (working) LABOR (PARTICIPATION) Command Economy ( Lower – Involuntarily Organized Labor+K) 6) DEPENDENT – PRODUCTION OF GENERATIONS (POS. FREEDOM) Dependent Economy (Dependents – Redistributions from Labor+K) #NewRight
  • The Functions of the Classes

    THE FUNCTIONS OF THE CLASSES (propertarian class theory) ——UPPER——- TOOL OF COERCION: FORCE – MILITARY, LAW, SHERIFF
    1) UPPER – PRODUCTION OF ORDER (SOVEREIGNTY) Rule Economyt (Aristocracy Profit from the Organization of Labor+K) ——MIDDLE——- TOOL OF COERCION – REMUNERATION – ORGANIZATION, DISTRIBUTION AND TRADE 2) UPPER MIDDLE – ORGANIZATION OF PRODUCTION (LIBERTY) Capitalism ( Organization of Labor+Knowledge ) 3) MIDDLE – ORGANIZATION OF TRANSFORMATION (FREEDOM) Market Economy ( Voluntarily Organized Labor+K) 4) LOWER MIDDLE (working) TRANSFORMATION (PARTICIPATION) Mixed Economy ( Voluntary + Involuntarily Organized Labor+K) ——LOWER——- TOOL OF COERCION: GOSSIP (RESISTANCE) – PRODUCTION, DIST. AND TRADE 5) LOWER (working) LABOR (PARTICIPATION) Command Economy ( Lower – Involuntarily Organized Labor+K) 6) DEPENDENT – PRODUCTION OF GENERATIONS (POS. FREEDOM) Dependent Economy (Dependents – Redistributions from Labor+K) #NewRight
  • Correcting Aristotle’s Categories of Philosophy

    The Law of Nature “Correcting Aristotle on Categories of Philosophy”

    Physical Laws (Transformation) – THE NECESSARY

    Physics: Astronomy, Chemistry, Biology, Sentience, Engineering, Mathematics

    Law of Man (properties of man) (Action) – THE POSSIBLE

    Acquisition, perception, memory, psychology, sociology

    Natural Law – Cooperation – THE GOOD

    Ethics, morality, law, economics

    Law of Testimony – THE TRUE

    Testimony, epistemology, grammar, logics, rhetoric

    Law of Aesthetics – THE BEAUTIFUL

    Sense, beauty, design, craft, content. manners. Fitness –Curt Doolittle, The Propertarian Institute, Kiev, Ukraine

  • Correcting Aristotle’s Categories of Philosophy

    The Law of Nature “Correcting Aristotle on Categories of Philosophy”

    Physical Laws (Transformation) – THE NECESSARY

    Physics: Astronomy, Chemistry, Biology, Sentience, Engineering, Mathematics

    Law of Man (properties of man) (Action) – THE POSSIBLE

    Acquisition, perception, memory, psychology, sociology

    Natural Law – Cooperation – THE GOOD

    Ethics, morality, law, economics

    Law of Testimony – THE TRUE

    Testimony, epistemology, grammar, logics, rhetoric

    Law of Aesthetics – THE BEAUTIFUL

    Sense, beauty, design, craft, content. manners. Fitness –Curt Doolittle, The Propertarian Institute, Kiev, Ukraine