Curt Doolittle

Form: Reply

  • Q&A: WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON RAND AND OBJECTIVISM, AND HOW DOES SHE COMPARE TO

    Q&A: WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON RAND AND OBJECTIVISM, AND HOW DOES SHE COMPARE TO PROPERTARIANISM

    (final word on the matter so to speak)

    —“Dear Doolittle: What are your thoughts on Ayn Rand and objectivism. What are the similarities between objectivism and propertarianism? What are the differences?Forgive me if you’ve already covered this, I’ve only been following for a few months.”—

    The simple version is that rand provides a literary attack on norms that is framed in economic terms, where nietzche provides a literary attack on norms that is framed by purely aestehtic terms. In my view she is attempting to restate nietzsche for middle class consumption.

    So if you asked me if you wanted to learn some subject I would tell you to start with an historical novel, or movie about it to provide cultural context. Then I would suggest an autobiography about it to provide personal context. Then I would tell you to read an introduction to the technical aspects – something short. Then to read a textbook about it. So I would tell you to work from broad brush strokes to very precise formula by incremental means.

    Rand is a LITERARY author trying desperately to produce an analytic philosophy. Where she succeeds is in providing an easier explanation of Nietzche accessible to the contemporary audience through a novelization. Where she fails is in an attempt to join the ranks of analytic philosophers. she succeeds in creating a literary moral philosophy for the moral argument of middle class values, but she fails in producing an ethical, moral, political, and group evolutionary science.

    Rand is a doorway for the young mind, and as such we should respect her as we respect other literary philosophers like plato. But there is no substitute for aristotelianism: science. its just a lot harder to learn science.

    I believe I have unified biology (science), philosophy: ethics and morality(cooperation), economics(production), politics( production of commons), group competitive strategy (evolution), and Law (decidability) and as such, for all intents and purposes, Propertarianism is my term for “Natural Law”, which is a science of cooperation expressed in the science of cooperation: “Law”.

    So in the 19th and early 20th century we saw the battle between egalitarian eugenic truth and transcendence: poincare, maxwell, darwin, menger, spencer, hayek, and nietzsche, and authoritarian dysgenic lies: cantor, boaz, marx, freud, frankfurt school (left), mises/rothbard/rand (middle), and Trotsky/Leo Strauss (right) school of accommodation of the underclasses and profiting from them. And we saw the total failure in the 20th century of the anglo model of classical liberalism and the failure of its arguments – accommodation. And we saw the unfortunate failure in the 20th century of the german attempt at the second scientific revolution, and the restoration of europe, by the maturation of the german (hanseatic) civilization.

    What has happened is that since neither could win the arguments, the left has tried to immigrate lower class dependents in, faster than the conservatives can integrate them. And it has worked to a large degree only because the school, state, academy complex has conspired against western civilization: egalitarian, eugenic, and truthful civilization of transcendence.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Cult of Non Submission

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Natural Law of Sovereign Men

    The Propertarian Institute, Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-20 12:49:00 UTC

  • ” If I were a total newb what book/books should I start with?”—Ziggy Jonathan

    —” If I were a total newb what book/books should I start with?”—Ziggy

    Jonathan Haidt: The Righteous Mind

    Francis Fukuyama: Trust

    Garett Jones: Hive Mind: How Your Nations IQ Matters So Much More Than Your Own

    Peter Turchin: Ultrasociety: How 10,000 Years of War Made Humans the Greatest Cooperators on Earth

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-20 08:39:00 UTC

  • ANSWER TO A LOW LEVEL CRITIC ^ i have no interest whatsoever in the general popu

    ANSWER TO A LOW LEVEL CRITIC

    ^ i have no interest whatsoever in the general population, other than to save the working and middle classes from the lies of the left and the parasitism of the financial and political sector.

    ^ Every social science experiment requires asymmetry of information (playing dumb), or it would not work, you silly git.

    ^ if you can’t learn, cant understand, then that is the only criticism you can make. Someone writes in code, another in algebraic expression, another in a foreign language, and another in a formal logic, and you don’t understand it, then is that a criticism of the authors or one of you?

    ^ when I publish something I learn a lot by the people who respond and how they respond. This tells me how to improve my work for clarity. But I do not seek to reduce the knowledge requirement for understanding it. Only to improve the clarity with which I write it.

    ^If you aren’t the audience then just use arguments that you can. But dont expect me to make a ‘dummies’ version. Someone else will undoubtably do that.

    ^All that most people need to understand is that it is possible to modify the constitution and to modify how the treasury distributes liquidity, and to reduce copyright, until the financial entertainment media and political sectors are starved of cash, and we use the new law to prosecute them every time they lie until no opportunity to lie remains, because we have built a body of case law that limits people to truthful speech in the commons.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-19 17:27:00 UTC

  • “Most of the time I see you post something, and a natural consequence of my pers

    —-“Most of the time I see you post something, and a natural consequence of my personality is to ask “How did you go about this? [but you don’t go into enough detail, and I want to learn, becuase I sense ‘something is not right’ in what I have been taught”. —- A friend

    I heavily edited the end there so that I could quickly get the point across.

    It’s very simple from my end. I can only afford to do so much one on one tutorial so to speak. And when I do, I want to make sure (a) i’m informing others as I’m doing it, rather than just you, and (b) i’m improving my skill by doing it. Otherwise it is a sunk cost for me and I’m very conscious of my time left on this earth and the amount of work I have left to do.

    There are very simple things I talk about, and very complex things.

    I see no problem in explaining western civilization using a very small number of ideas that I think people can understand if they have a bit of reading and education behind them, and if they want to think hard a bit for a while.

    But I think it is very, very, very hard to explain epistemology to people. And while it is personally one of my favorite topics because it is one of the hardest philosophers have dealt with, and probably one of my more important insights, I actually don’t think it is possible (or a good use of my time anyway) to get into comparative truth with most people at the epistemological level. I think it’s FINE at the group evolutionary strategy level so that we can differentiate between parasitism and production between peoples. But you know, you just don’t need to know that stuff, and … it’s only useful for the category of problems i’m solving

    All you need to know is that when you justify reasoning, a moral action or legal action, that’s because you are trying to demonstrate honesty, morailty and due diligence – that you are cooperating.

    But when you are talking about discovering a truth rather than adhering to a rule, we cannot ‘justify’ truth statements. We must see if they survive all forms of criticism – we must see if they survive in the battle of ideas. This is how we discover truth candidates.

    We create proofs in math and logic and programming to show that we adhered to the rules. We create rational, moral, and legal justification to show that we adhere to the rules. Why? Because the rules are very simple and well known: the causal density of the rules is fairly low)

    When we conduct scientific inquiry in the social or physical world, the rules (the causal density of reality) is very high. So we the size of the problem is very different, and we must test not our intentions, not the rules we followed, but everyting regardless of our intentions.

    But we evolved as social creatures and we lived cooperative lives that required us to communicate in the language of cooperation, and to discuss things that were actionable and perceivable at human scale.

    So in the 19th century as we developed many tools and techniques and logics, and equations, we had to change our thinking from spending most of our time in the logic of cooperation: justification, to the logic of ‘everything bigger than that’, meaning science.

    In other words, we humans moved from a world of JUSTIFIABLE RULES at human scale, to a world of THEORIES at post-human scale. And frankly we have not evolved for it.

    So we are still in the process of converting people from thinking in simple human scale terms of justifications of those things we can act upon and experience, to participating in a society consisting of things we largely cannot perceive or act upon, except in very subtle ways.

    So the ‘alienation’ we experience in post village, post-tribal, post-familial civilization is caused not only by the movement of people to capital instead of capital to people, and the loss of all those human relationships that allow us to rely upon instinctual justification of our actions, but we live in a market society where there is very little feedback, and we think in concepts of very large scale, and we (almost all of us) lack the education necessary to THINK at large scale sufficiently to understand how we fit into that vast but alienating world.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-19 16:54:00 UTC

  • “A while ago, I was asking questions about masculinity. You unfriended me after

    —“A while ago, I was asking questions about masculinity. You unfriended me after that and never answered. I thought you were superbusy and me asking questions was an insult – a parasitic behaviour since I want some piece of digested information from you, but, have nothing to exchange the given information with.”—-

    I don’t unfriend people who ask what I think are honest questions. I unfriend people for very simple reasons: (a) wasting my time unapologetically, (b) engaging in trolling or ridicule, or posting memes and other adolescent behavior (c) criticizing out of ignorance from a position of arrogance, rather than asking questions from a position of curiosity. i mean basically I am generous with my time but I don’t want it wasted. I’m not running a social club or a form. this is my work.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-19 16:27:00 UTC

  • “Hi, Curt! Reading your latest piece on Facebook starting as “DEAR MISEDUCATED W

    —“Hi, Curt! Reading your latest piece on Facebook starting as “DEAR MISEDUCATED WORLD”. Interesting piece. I wanted to learn math on my own to accompany my job in life sciences, but was always taken away from the simplistic nature of perspective. I wonder, how do you approach about learning logic, the ternary “science” as you suggest? I know you are right, at least on an intuitive level, but I would like to know more.”—- A Friend.

    Um. I think you might stump me with this because my ability to discern differences in logic is something I am pretty sure I was born with. My brain just sort of ‘does stuff’ and then wakes me up when it finds a new toy so to speak. It could take a few minutes, a few days, a few months, or even years. Then ‘ping’. “Oh. Hello! Thank you.”

    But that said, I came to my current understanding primarily because in my work, I’ve studied arguments in literally every field. BUT I have spent most of my time in computer science, which sits as bridge between engineering and mathematics. And so if you think in science, in engineering, in computer science, in mathematics, in logic, and in philosophy, and in law, you just come into contact with all these terms that everyone uses in each discipline that when studied whole simply refer to very different conditions. And by trying to resolve the conflicts between these disciplines you sort of get the insight into what ‘was wrong’.

    I don’t think anything i’m saying here is terribly radical, in fact, I think it’s all understood. But no one has put a comprehensive argument together that includes testimony and reciprocity before (that I know of) while at the same time relying upon falsificationism (survival of an idea in the market for criticism).

    Honestly there isn’t much more to know than:

    a) what is the difference between an axiomatic and justificationary proof, and a theoretic and critical hypothesis? What is the difference in information in each formulation of argument.

    I mean really, if you get that, then you just ignore anyone who uses the word ‘true’ until you figure out if they mean:

    1) clearly stated (non conflationary)

    2) logically possible (at least non contradictory)

    3) axiomatically provable(justficationary) OR operationally constructable(critical)

    4) theoretically survivable (externally correspondent)

    5) morally reciprocal

    6) fully accounted (did you consider all the inputs outputs costs of transformation, and externalities, such that you know the limits of your proposition.

    Then you can go back to the previous article you just mentioned and look at how the word true is used. and you say, “Well they mean they can construct a proof of possibiilty, but that’s just justificationary, we don’t yet know if that survives external correspondence yet” etc.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-19 16:22:00 UTC

  • its not necessarily intelligence but ignorance and arrogance that limits you. An

    its not necessarily intelligence but ignorance and arrogance that limits you. And btw: not an argument.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-19 11:13:50 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/833273383831863296

    Reply addressees: @LueYee

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/833221167385296897

    IN REPLY TO:

    @lueyee

    Those who find this intelligible must be awfully intelligent folk who can see the clothes I cannot see. https://t.co/IKxbd4M43t

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/833221167385296897

  • Just ask questions you dimwitted f–ks. I promise that you are too stupid to be

    Just ask questions you dimwitted f–ks. I promise that you are too stupid to be able to criticize my arguments, because you’re too stupid to f—king understand them.. From what I can gather from followers, to actually get anywhere requires a 130 IQ, or exceptional reading comprehension – and the guys who master it well are all above 140 if not 150. But ordinary guys can make use of the basic arguments all day long. I’m a conservative argument weapons manufacturer. So just see if you can use them. Ask questions. I’m generous with good manners. and I’m happy to help you use these new weapons. But if you’re a hate-maker, or meme-er, or propagandist rather than debater, then I’m not your guy. I’m sick of the arrogance of ignorant disenfranchised, self-delusional youth up against a constant barrier of dunning-kruger and desperately searching for some bit of self confidence and argumentative power to compensate for real life impotency, weaknesses and underachievement.

    fuk. I’m decent guy. Who else does this shit? Moly? fuk. Color me pissed this week.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-18 17:55:00 UTC

  • “CURT: Is Hobbes’ assessment of man the closest to Propertarianism?”— I think

    —“CURT: Is Hobbes’ assessment of man the closest to Propertarianism?”—

    I think that we are sort of between Hobbes and Locke, with a Hobbesian view of mankind but a Locke/Smith solution. I think Hobbes could not imagine institutional solutions and between Lock,Smith, and Jefferson, they tried to imagine and create them.

    Unfortunately the constitution was written as a rational prose that was the best of its time. But today we know how to strictly construct a constitution with nearly axiomatic precision that forces original intent, and prevents the judiciary from rule, in ways that the founders and their philosophers could not have imagined.

    Unfortunately, Hobbes was right about the need for monarchy (as Hoppe has illustrated convincingly). The government may function as an insurer of last resort, and the court as a law of last resort, but there is no synthesis in an individual with a time horizon of millennia to lay veto upon those incremental errors that creep through the social, intellectual, legal, process. Our constitution was destroyed not by a deliberate attack but by violating it after the civil war over western expansion, and then incrementally killing it by a thousand cuts with full and malicious intent by the socialists – the New Church.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-16 16:20:00 UTC

  • Rafael Valera (@DefendVenezuela): Greetings from #Venezuela! Here’s my latest ar

    https://t.co/gQGylcvTp0Retweeted Rafael Valera (@DefendVenezuela):

    Greetings from #Venezuela! Here’s my latest article for @ForoLibertad https://t.co/gQGylcvTp0

    @curtdoolittle

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-15 10:46:00 UTC