Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • MORE ON TRUTH: OBJECTIVE VS SCIENTIFIC OBJECTIVE (Constructive/Justificationary)

    MORE ON TRUTH: OBJECTIVE VS SCIENTIFIC

    OBJECTIVE (Constructive/Justificationary) – Kantian Rationalism

    – vs. –

    SCIENTIFIC (Deflationary / Falsificationary) – Darwinian/Popperian Science

    1) A justificationary argument would rely on claims of objectivity. (via-positiva)

    2) A deflationary argument would rely on elimination of subjective information. (via-negativa)

    3) We achieve Deflationary (~Objective) speech by removing all subjective content from our speech.

    4) We remove all subjective content from our speech by

    (a) fully expanding all sentences.

    (b) translating those expanded sentences into fully operational language.

    (c) Testing each dimension of perceivable reality for consistency (determinism)

    …i) categorical consistency (identity)

    …ii) internal consistency (logical)

    …iii) external correspondence (empirical consistency)

    …iv) existential consistency (operational language)

    …v) rational consistency (rational choice of rational actor)

    …vi) reciprocal consistency (rational choice of all participating actors)

    …vii) scope consistency (limits of proposition, and full accounting of internal properties and external consequences.)

    (d) Restating the sentence with surviving and failed tests of consistency as a test of coherence.

    6) this process will, in ordinary language, provide tests of whether the speaker in fact understands what he speaks, and that his speech is correspondent, consistent, and coherent in all dimensions. Because it is, as far as I know, impossible to state a coherent and false statement and survive these tests, while at the same time claiming it is ‘truthful’ rather than theoretical, hypothetical, or a guess.

    –“every claim we make”–

    (a) It means that within the LIMITS we assume or propose it is possible to speak truthfully, even if in the ideal sense – unlimited, and ideal truth – we cannot speak ‘the truth’.

    (b) All speech is theoretical but some theoretical speech is trivial (non contradictory, or with implied limits).

    —“Brain in a vat”–

    Rationalist error. since no logic of any dimension (identity, logic, empirical, operational, reciprocal) is sufficient for truth claims, only for tests of internal consistency, then all ordinary language tests must appeal to the next higher dimension (at least – if not all) in order to make truth claim (rather than a proof claim).

    It is very common for rationalists used to justificationary statements, to conflate proof (internal consistency) with truthfulness (consistency, correspondence, and coherence), with True(ideal), and True(analytic).

    So unless you know which ‘true’ you’re using, most rational arguments are just victorian word games.

    Curt Doolittle

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-03 12:02:00 UTC

  • ASK ME ANYTHING. TODAY AT 5PM Eastern. ON FB LIVE. (DURATION: For as long as the

    ASK ME ANYTHING. TODAY AT 5PM Eastern. ON FB LIVE.

    (DURATION: For as long as there are questions.)

    Process, Post a question here, or post it during the session. I will start with those posted here. Then I’ll ask if you’re online, repeat your question, and we’ll walk tru it. How does that sound?

    Why? I want to practice a technique. I’m hoping you’ll have the ‘courage’ to ask me some hard questions, and then work with me as I walk you thru them.

    In other words, I want to interview YOU.

    As always. Thank you for working with me on this project.

    Propertarianism has evolved (as I had hoped) into a community project.

    This is one more step in bringing you the solution to the restoration of the west

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-03 10:55:00 UTC

  • “How can we most effectively and probabilistically get as much of our civilizati

    —“How can we most effectively and probabilistically get as much of our civilization to actually conform to Natural Law as much as is necessary to prevent the collapse inevitable on its current trajectory as quickly as possible?I think answering this question in practice rather than theory will very likely to require us to be pragmatic, not idealistic. Having said all of that, what do you offer the average man to motivate him to discipline himself sufficiently to take the responsibility required to fight the war you propose and win? Intellectuals alone does not a revolution make.”—Joel

    (CD: Actually, as far as I know, intellectuals providing solutions for a small number of angry and frustrated young men, always a revolution makes.)

    Curt Doolittle An interestingly phrased question.

    1) i think you are applying the following biases:

    – false consensus bias

    – group attribution error

    – illusion of transparency

    2) There already are more than sufficient numbers to revolt. they only need a plan they think can succeed and leadership.

    3) The question isn’t how many can we get to revolt, but how many can we encourage not resist the revolt.

    4) I don’t put forth belief systems, but institutional recipes that are *easily* operationalized. I put forth criticisms of anything that does not survive deflation into the grammar of incentives which all cognition, emotion, and langauge exists to justify. In other words, I have the direction of causality correct.

    5) What I am offering to the people who might resist revolt is de-financialization, and de-deception, and a rough redistribution of the 20th century’s malappropriation by the upper 1% to the middle and working classes. The full consequences of this redistribution will make it almost impossible for them middle and working classes to dismiss it.

    6) The cost of this is the loss of ability for the media, the public intellectuals, the activists and the politicians both right and left to engage in lying; and the ‘cost’ is that they must take action to prosecute ‘liars’ (for compensation); and then, the other ‘cost’ is the market demand that they gradually learn how to express their middle and working class ethics in rational and reciprocal terms. (which will evolve normally as did rational, statistical, and scientific speech).

    7) Voluntary disassociation as well as association, which will allow people with lower incomes to live near their kin instead of pushing our kin down into mixed neighborhoods where they obtain bad behavior and create class conflict. Right now people associate by tribe (neighborhood) by the cost of homes and the cost of local education. This creates a caste system and low trust rather than a kinship system and high trust.

    The optional costs with extraordinary benefits are:

    1) withdraw copyright protection and replace it with creative commons protection alone (profiting from use). This will destroy the hollywood sector’s ability to produce propaganda.

    2) replace the patent process with whether the produce required extra-market R&D subsidy or whether the patent is purely defensive at the expense of consumers.

    3) vast restructuring of the academy but most importantly, that the academy must carry the student loan debt (direct from the treasury), and can only be paid out of future earnings over ten years.

    (This set of optional changes is quite long. I wont’ go into them.)

    The radical changes are more important:

    10) the devolution of federal (central) powers to the resolution of conflict over property between the states, and repeal of the civil war amendments.

    The preservation of the military, treasury, and insurer of last resort functions. In other words, reducing the federal system to a utility shared by the states or regions.

    11) voluntary secession of any region at the neighborhood level in exchange for assuming their portion of debt in the original currency, including any territorial assets.

    Etc.

    CLOSING

    This is a pretty libertarian solution to the problem. It says ‘you may go your way as long as I may go mine’, while preserving the ONLY value of scale: insurance via military, treasury, ‘insurance’, and judiciary.

    What it does not do is recommend anarchism, but micro-nationalism.

    AFTERWARD

    Markets are the only way to defeat all other method of order – because the higher the velocity of trial and error the greater the retained advantage.

    You can catch up to markets by authoritarianism – that’s evidence.

    Because you can use existing information discovered by trial and error.

    You can spend down accumulated advantage with social democracy – until no more advantage remains to be spent.

    But you cannot defeat markets. Particularly INSURED markets.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-03 10:46:00 UTC

  • The Alt-Right is not an ideological strategy for obtaining power in a democratic

    The Alt-Right is not an ideological strategy for obtaining power in a democratic polity – but the preparation for civil war.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-03 09:31:00 UTC

  • “You can’t make a deal with the devil. You have to kill them all.”—Robert Reid

    —“You can’t make a deal with the devil. You have to kill them all.”—Robert Reidle

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-03 09:25:00 UTC

  • “Westerners struggle to define even the most basic forms of deception, let alone

    —“Westerners struggle to define even the most basic forms of deception, let alone the sort of complexity that the Kremlin has been skull fucking you with for the past half-century.”—Emil Prelic

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-03 09:04:00 UTC

  • CURT, WHY DO YOU ATTACK CHRISTIANITY? (OR ALL RELIGION) This is a great question

    CURT, WHY DO YOU ATTACK CHRISTIANITY? (OR ALL RELIGION)

    This is a great question but the answer is pretty simple.

    1) I want to know if it is possible to prohibit all forms of deception in public speech, so that my high trust people can continue to practice and improve their high trust civilization.

    2) There are multiple sources of ‘deception’ in history, but very few of those sources of deception are successful at political scale. The primary sources of deception can be identified by examples during the age of the invention of communication in the ancient world: (a) abrahamism(deception by bait and suggestion), (b) augustinian( accommodation / pragmatism), (c) platonism (ideal / utopianism); and their attempts at truth (d) education(stoicism/virtues) or propaganda(good/should), and (e) aristotelianism(description of what exists and works).

    3) In my work I rely on deflation: survival from competition; or what prior generations of philosophers called ‘analysis’, or what you would consider the scientific method: falsification. I attack every definition, every causal proposition, every value attribution, under the presumption that they are all false, biased, wishful thinking, or deceptions, until all I have left are possible (true) statements, that are categorically, logically, empirically, rationally consistent. So I have to break ideas down into their basic parts as ‘what do people want to acquire by saying this?’, and ‘what kinds of lies are they telling themselves and others to justify acquiring it?’ In other words, I attack everything completely until all loading, framing, obscurantism and suggestion, and bias, are eliminated.

    THE ANSWER?

    Because what prevented the completion of the enlightenment and our return to Aristotelianism, Roman Law, and Stoic Education, (or the escape from the lies of abrahamic deception , augustinian pragmatism, platonic idealism ), was our failure to demand total reformation of our church – abandoning Abrahamic deception, abandoning Augustinian accommodation. But preservation of the feminine: the individual service of others. In other words, abandoning everything other than the very, very, simple message of jesus: the extension of infinite love to one another. (Unfortunately, this message was universalist rather than nationalist. As suited the ancient empires. As suits the underclasses rebellion against the various aristocracies.)

    During the mid 20th century, the the American Protestant churches, and the catholic church under Vatican II abandoned defense of europe and doubled-down on the *individual* christ-as-servant strategy, and individual *evangelism*. And while this was the proper use of church teaching, the church retained it’s nonsense abrahamic and augustinian and platonist nonsense.

    So we might say that the churches failed to reform. Or we might say that they lacked knowledge of HOW to reform into secular hero worship of jesus and the saints who ACTED to serve others rather than *god*. As far as I know, The only persons in my lifetime I have can judge as having succeeded in achieving the christian ideals are Mother Theresa, and Pope John Paul. But if we remove the abrahamic spiritualists from the list of saints, and the political propagandists, and political activists, and instead, lionize the servants of the poor that remain then we have in fact, the remains of the christian church. All else is lies.

    So if you want to, and I want to, save western civilization, it is by eliminating the false gods, and lionizing the heroes that really existed. To do so requires at least four archetypes: Alexander and Leonidas(Martial), Aristotle and Zeno(Truth and Reason), The Templars and Explorers(Entrepreneurs and Financiers), and Jesus and (Theresa?) (love and caretakers). And the many thousands of other characters who existed.

    If you want to save your people it is not achieved by lies, but by the knowledge and use of the origins of western civilization: Truth and Reason, Heroism and Excellence, Law and judge and jury, and the markets in everything that result from those institutions.

    Truth is enough. And it is quite possible to extend the involuntary warranty of due diligence against fraud from product(property), and service(action), to information (public speech.)

    *Categorical, logical, empirical, operational, rational, reciprocal consistency with defined limits and full a full accounting of internal scope and external consequences.*

    It is trivial to put this into law.

    And the market for non-parasitism via the courts will end by self interest that which we cannot achieve through demand for virtue against self interest.

    And within a generation the west will be restored.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-03 08:56:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle shared a post

    Curt Doolittle shared a post.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-03 07:56:00 UTC

  • GENDER (PHYSICAL), SEXUAL DRIVE(DEVELOPMENTAL), IDENTITY( PSYCHOLOGICAL) Gender

    GENDER (PHYSICAL), SEXUAL DRIVE(DEVELOPMENTAL), IDENTITY( PSYCHOLOGICAL)

    Gender drives (biases) are produced *developmentally*: in utero, during early development and through our transformative eras.

    Sexual plasticity varies more in females than in males because females use attention, affection, and sex with the same utility as men use loyalty, argument, and physical transformation.

    The process of gender development just like the process of brain development, is ‘fragile’, in that one cannot improve it but many things can impede it.

    This process evolved to require both environmental(training) and physical factors.

    The desocialization process of modernity, the decline in male influence in the maturation(training) process, and the trauma of the school vs home environment, and the loss of mother from the home, has had a substantial impact on the the developmental process.

    As far as I know 1) homosexuality is determined in-utero, and 2) all ‘body identity’ or ‘gender identity’ ‘questions’ are defects in developmental training.

    It is not clear that , however in large scale it affects trust-capital, normative capital, and calculability (organizational ability). as well as political decidability.

    Why? *because the individual is irrelevant compared to the family, and because the family produces generations of increasingly superior inferior individuals, the consequences of which are superior or inferior competitive ability against other groups, against nature, against the universe.*

    As far as I know, homosexuality cannot be ‘cured’ (and there is some evidence that a small amount of homosexuality in a population is a good thing) but it can be prevented as can many birth defects. As far as I know, gender identity questions are due to environmental-chemical, environmental-maladaption, and these are largely the result of problems of psychological development.

    So

    1) gender is genetically determined period.

    2) sexual attraction is both genetic and in-utero-developmental.

    3) Body image/identity (marketing one’s utility) problems are psychological problems that are repairable, but should not arise in the first place if we are sufficiently socialized.

    The desperate need for identity when most people have no means of obtaining status signals, has encouraged doubling down on immaturity rather than devoting effort to maturity during the formative years.

    The easiest solution to this problem is to return to gender separated schools (I went to a private boys school and my sisters to a private girls school, and I stayed in a mens only dorm in college) and to provide the same separation for developmentally challenged students so to speak.

    This would assist in the reinforcement of gender excellences regardless of gender bias, but prevent problems of gender identity caused by developmental deficiencies in the environment.

    Of course, if we just 1) cut school days to 4 hours (maximum possible utility of school), instead of treating school as day care; and 2) if we stopped subsidizing the underclasses so that taxes could return to pre-redistribution levels, and 3) that one income was sufficient for a family, then the problem would self correct.

    Because it is a consequence of socialization under leftist influence.

    The left has been a cancer for mankind. It’s the madness of women’s desperate instincts that her child must be worthy writ large.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-03 07:53:00 UTC

  • THE POSTMODERN ALT-RIGHT vs. THE MODERN NEW-RIGHT —“One may say that my use of

    THE POSTMODERN ALT-RIGHT vs. THE MODERN NEW-RIGHT

    —“One may say that my use of “alt-right” is misleading since those who call themselves alt-right do not necessarily agree. Some are just sick of the SJWs, some are nazi’s, a few are disaffected libertarians, others are socialists …. but all of them are anti modernist. They simply reject the pillars of the western philosophical cannon. This is what makes them quintessentially post/anti-modern. To hell with the categorical imperative. To hell with classical liberalism. To hell with moderation. And to hell with judge discovered law.”—Ayelam Valentine Agaliba

    REPEAT THAT. The Alt Right:

    – is post/anti-modern, because it:

    – abandons the categorical imperative.

    – abandons classical liberalism.

    – abandons moderation.

    – abandons judge discovered law.

    I haven’t done this in Propertarianism. I’ve merely extended the suppression of parasitism in product(property) and service(action) to information(speech).

    So in my opinion, I have COMPLETED the modern program – finally.

    And made postmodern discourse into prosecutable fraud.

    The *ONLY* painful bit is that christianity must complete it’s transition to hero worship of jesus and abandon the lies of ‘god’.

    There are no exceptions to truth. Truth is truth.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-03 06:30:00 UTC