Curt Doolittle

Form: Reply

  • What’s Your Radical View?

    I assume that you do realize that you have not asked a question, and that you’ve advertised an opinion.

    https://www.quora.com/unanswered/Whats-your-radical-view

  • What’s Your Radical View?

    I assume that you do realize that you have not asked a question, and that you’ve advertised an opinion.

    https://www.quora.com/unanswered/Whats-your-radical-view

  • ALTERNATIVES TO PROPERTARIANISM —“I’m interested in application and other meth

    ALTERNATIVES TO PROPERTARIANISM

    —“I’m interested in application and other methods that purport to arrive at ‘legitimate’ conclusions that are either orthogonal or nearly synonymous but methodically separate from propertarianism. For example, Popper may have advocated CR but there is plenty left to be said about psychoanalysis or metaphysics or philosophy of mind that is not derived through its application…..Propertarianism may be one tool but how many tools are in the box? And how many boxes are there?”—

    Curt Doolittle

    I don’t deal with “legitimate” in other than legal terms, because I don’t know what that means in other than legal terms. Instead I deal with moral necessity. MEANING can be achieved through whatever devices we can creatively invent and apply. But I am not solving a problem of meaning (it is infinitely recursive) I am solving a problem of ethics, law, and politics: using language that must be rationally calculable (not open to loading and framing) independent of meaning. And as such, expressly NOT one of meaning. In Propertarianism I operate with the principle that cooperation requires prevention of parasitism, and that every theft (involuntary transfer) is a lost opportunity for exchange (production). As far as I know this the only universally ethical statement because ethics must be reducible to cooperation to have any logical content (meaning). This is not rationalism but science, since this is what we demonstrate no matter how primitive or advanced the society. We just prohibit more or less parasitism, and use more or less government depending upon our level of parasitism.

    So as far as I know cooperation can be represented by a formal grammar, which is an increase in the precision of the formal grammar of institutions. And all moral and immoral operations can be stated in this grammar. (This is what I suspect Mises was trying to get at.)

    But that doesn’t tell us anything other than how to make contracts and resolve conflicts. It doesn’t help us understand that women and men value states of affairs differently, and that they react positively and negatively (with joy or sorrow) to different states of affairs. And that we make compromises for in pursuit of a Nash equilibrium in everything we do, leaving all of us more satisfied than any other possible condition, while less satisfied that the condition we aspire to.

    It is the reality of this equilibrium that causes us our disappointments, and the fact that the genetic lottery aggressively makes you a loser as you vary negatively from the norm.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-28 09:08:00 UTC

  • Curt: Why Do You Keep Saying Truth Is Not Extant?

    (from CR discussion) [W]ell, I have very consistently argued that platonic ‘ultimate’ truth is not extant, which is exactly what CR says: I can never possess it. (this may not be true at some point in the future but it is now, since we cannot reduce the universe to first principles as yet). Once we have reduced the universe to first principles It becomes difficult to understand how that would not be the most parsimonious truth, just as voluntary exchange is the most parsimonious ethical truth. So popper defines truth … as in-extant. I am just agreeing with you all because I see no way of reconciling performative truth with absolute truth other than my oft-repeated argument that it is possible to produce many truthful statements(true), none of which are complete(ultimate truth). So I’ve had to stick with truthfulness and ultimate truth as a means of not fighting a linguistic argument over habituated semantics. As far as I know I am correct in making both arguments, even if the argument that I can’t ‘sell’ is the accurate one. Platonic truth is a moral, not necessary or logical constraint. Whereas performative truth, always open to revision, offered to the market as products for consumption is probably the most accurate version of truth I or anyone else, has been able to construct, for non-formal languages. (which is something I think some of people in this group don’t understand the meaning of.) (And I have kind of been fussing with this problem for a year now. It’s freakin’ killing me. no wonder so much ink has been spent on it.) So again, I can go either way with it, and I suspect that in my book I will answer it correctly first, then say why it is so culturally impossible to change platonic truth, and then simply surrender to the dichotomy of using performative truthfulness, and platonic truth. “Cause if I can’t seem to even get one of you guys to at least see it, then I kind of think the only people who will, are going to be specialists. ie: a handful of people. So the best solution is to address both audiences. That way I get the specialists with the accurate version and the passionately interested with the utilitarian version. I mean, I bet I could have this conversation with, say, Dennett or Searle if I explained the reason for it, and and I don’t think it would be very hard. Eh… most of the top 100 would be pretty easy. They might not like my application but I doubt they would disagree with my logic. Thanks. Curt

  • Curt: Why Do You Keep Saying Truth Is Not Extant?

    (from CR discussion) [W]ell, I have very consistently argued that platonic ‘ultimate’ truth is not extant, which is exactly what CR says: I can never possess it. (this may not be true at some point in the future but it is now, since we cannot reduce the universe to first principles as yet). Once we have reduced the universe to first principles It becomes difficult to understand how that would not be the most parsimonious truth, just as voluntary exchange is the most parsimonious ethical truth. So popper defines truth … as in-extant. I am just agreeing with you all because I see no way of reconciling performative truth with absolute truth other than my oft-repeated argument that it is possible to produce many truthful statements(true), none of which are complete(ultimate truth). So I’ve had to stick with truthfulness and ultimate truth as a means of not fighting a linguistic argument over habituated semantics. As far as I know I am correct in making both arguments, even if the argument that I can’t ‘sell’ is the accurate one. Platonic truth is a moral, not necessary or logical constraint. Whereas performative truth, always open to revision, offered to the market as products for consumption is probably the most accurate version of truth I or anyone else, has been able to construct, for non-formal languages. (which is something I think some of people in this group don’t understand the meaning of.) (And I have kind of been fussing with this problem for a year now. It’s freakin’ killing me. no wonder so much ink has been spent on it.) So again, I can go either way with it, and I suspect that in my book I will answer it correctly first, then say why it is so culturally impossible to change platonic truth, and then simply surrender to the dichotomy of using performative truthfulness, and platonic truth. “Cause if I can’t seem to even get one of you guys to at least see it, then I kind of think the only people who will, are going to be specialists. ie: a handful of people. So the best solution is to address both audiences. That way I get the specialists with the accurate version and the passionately interested with the utilitarian version. I mean, I bet I could have this conversation with, say, Dennett or Searle if I explained the reason for it, and and I don’t think it would be very hard. Eh… most of the top 100 would be pretty easy. They might not like my application but I doubt they would disagree with my logic. Thanks. Curt

  • “CR does not assert that we cannot possess the truth”— That too is a platonic

    —“CR does not assert that we cannot possess the truth”—

    That too is a platonic statement. So I must act as though I never possess it, correct? If we cannot know we have it, then we cannot act as if we have it. “knowing” is an experience, not an action.

    I think I could make a career out of making that single point….. lol

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-25 12:55:00 UTC

  • CURT, WHY DO YOU KEEP SAYING ‘TRUTH’ IS NOT EXTANT? (from CR discussion) Well, I

    CURT, WHY DO YOU KEEP SAYING ‘TRUTH’ IS NOT EXTANT?

    (from CR discussion)

    Well, I have very consistently argued that platonic ‘ultimate’ truth is not extant, which is exactly what CR says: I can never possess it. (this may not be true at some point in the future but it is now, since we cannot reduce the universe to first principles as yet). Once we have reduced the universe to first principles It becomes difficult to understand how that would not be the most parsimonious truth, just as voluntary exchange is the most parsimonious ethical truth.

    So popper defines truth … as in-extant. I am just agreeing with you all because I see no way of reconciling performative truth with absolute truth other than my oft-repeated argument that it is possible to produce many truthful statements(true), none of which are complete(ultimate truth). So I’ve had to stick with truthfulness and ultimate truth as a means of not fighting a linguistic argument over habituated semantics.

    As far as I know I am correct in making both arguments, even if the argument that I can’t ‘sell’ is the accurate one. Platonic truth is a moral, not necessary or logical constraint. Whereas performative truth, always open to revision, offered to the market as products for consumption is probably the most accurate version of truth I or anyone else, has been able to construct, for non-formal languages. (which is something I think some of people in this group don’t understand the meaning of.)

    (And I have kind of been fussing with this problem for a year now. It’s freakin’ killing me. no wonder so much ink has been spent on it.)

    So again, I can go either way with it, and I suspect that in my book I will answer it correctly first, then say why it is so culturally impossible to change platonic truth, and then simply surrender to the dichotomy of using performative truthfulness, and platonic truth.

    “Cause if I can’t seem to even get one of you guys to at least see it, then I kind of think the only people who will, are going to be specialists. ie: a handful of people. So the best solution is to address both audiences. That way I get the specialists with the accurate version and the passionately interested with the utilitarian version.

    I mean, I bet I could have this conversation with, say, Dennett or Searle if I explained the reason for it, and and I don’t think it would be very hard. Eh… most of the top 100 would be pretty easy. They might not like my application but I doubt they would disagree with my logic.

    Thanks.

    Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-25 12:22:00 UTC

  • Curt: Why Do You Keep Saying Truth Is Not Extant?

    (from CR discussion) [W]ell, I have very consistently argued that platonic ‘ultimate’ truth is not extant, which is exactly what CR says: I can never possess it. (this may not be true at some point in the future but it is now, since we cannot reduce the universe to first principles as yet). Once we have reduced the universe to first principles It becomes difficult to understand how that would not be the most parsimonious truth, just as voluntary exchange is the most parsimonious ethical truth. So Popper defines truth … as in-extant. I am just agreeing with you all because I see no way of reconciling performative truth with absolute truth other than my oft-repeated argument that it is possible to produce many truthful statements(true), none of which are complete(ultimate truth). So I’ve had to stick with truthfulness and ultimate truth as a means of not fighting a linguistic argument over habituated semantics. As far as I know I am correct in making both arguments, even if the argument that I can’t ‘sell’ is the accurate one. Platonic truth is a moral, not necessary or logical constraint. Whereas performative truth, always open to revision, offered to the market as products for consumption is probably the most accurate version of truth I or anyone else, has been able to construct, for non-formal languages. (which is something I think some of people in this group don’t understand the meaning of.) (And I have kind of been fussing with this problem for a year now. It’s freakin’ killing me. no wonder so much ink has been spent on it.) So again, I can go either way with it, and I suspect that in my book I will answer it correctly first, then say why it is so culturally impossible to change platonic truth, and then simply surrender to the dichotomy of using performative truthfulness, and platonic truth. “Cause if I can’t seem to even get one of you guys to at least see it, then I kind of think the only people who will, are going to be specialists. ie: a handful of people. So the best solution is to address both audiences. That way I get the specialists with the accurate version and the passionately interested with the utilitarian version. I mean, I bet I could have this conversation with, say, Dennett or Searle if I explained the reason for it, and and I don’t think it would be very hard. Eh… most of the top 100 would be pretty easy. They might not like my application but I doubt they would disagree with my logic. Thanks. Curt

  • Curt: Why Do You Keep Saying Truth Is Not Extant?

    (from CR discussion) [W]ell, I have very consistently argued that platonic ‘ultimate’ truth is not extant, which is exactly what CR says: I can never possess it. (this may not be true at some point in the future but it is now, since we cannot reduce the universe to first principles as yet). Once we have reduced the universe to first principles It becomes difficult to understand how that would not be the most parsimonious truth, just as voluntary exchange is the most parsimonious ethical truth. So Popper defines truth … as in-extant. I am just agreeing with you all because I see no way of reconciling performative truth with absolute truth other than my oft-repeated argument that it is possible to produce many truthful statements(true), none of which are complete(ultimate truth). So I’ve had to stick with truthfulness and ultimate truth as a means of not fighting a linguistic argument over habituated semantics. As far as I know I am correct in making both arguments, even if the argument that I can’t ‘sell’ is the accurate one. Platonic truth is a moral, not necessary or logical constraint. Whereas performative truth, always open to revision, offered to the market as products for consumption is probably the most accurate version of truth I or anyone else, has been able to construct, for non-formal languages. (which is something I think some of people in this group don’t understand the meaning of.) (And I have kind of been fussing with this problem for a year now. It’s freakin’ killing me. no wonder so much ink has been spent on it.) So again, I can go either way with it, and I suspect that in my book I will answer it correctly first, then say why it is so culturally impossible to change platonic truth, and then simply surrender to the dichotomy of using performative truthfulness, and platonic truth. “Cause if I can’t seem to even get one of you guys to at least see it, then I kind of think the only people who will, are going to be specialists. ie: a handful of people. So the best solution is to address both audiences. That way I get the specialists with the accurate version and the passionately interested with the utilitarian version. I mean, I bet I could have this conversation with, say, Dennett or Searle if I explained the reason for it, and and I don’t think it would be very hard. Eh… most of the top 100 would be pretty easy. They might not like my application but I doubt they would disagree with my logic. Thanks. Curt

  • Sure I will join. I am a glutton for rhetorical punishment. 🙂

    Sure I will join. I am a glutton for rhetorical punishment. 🙂

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-24 15:58:58 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/492338156319309824

    Reply addressees: @TheNewsHub

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/483299613315981312

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/483299613315981312