Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY (via request) SIMPLE VERSION COMMON LANGUAGE FORMAL LANGUA

    https://propertarianism.com/2016/08/16/qa-curt-whats-your-position-on-intellectual-property/PROPERTARIANISM: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

    (via request)

    SIMPLE VERSION

    https://propertarianism.com/2014/12/17/intellectual-property-ip-in-propertarianism/

    COMMON LANGUAGE

    https://propertarianism.com/2016/08/16/qa-curt-whats-your-position-on-intellectual-property/

    FORMAL LANGUAGE

    https://propertarianism.com/2015/06/13/rights-of-limited-market-monopoly-intellectual-property/

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-19 17:04:00 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

  • “The Quest in reactionary circles is to how to manage the good impulses within u

    —“The Quest in reactionary circles is to how to manage the good impulses within us and bad ones outside of us.”—Jaromír Miškovský

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-19 15:43:00 UTC

  • “There exist great differences in genetic, social, monetary, informational, and

    —“There exist great differences in genetic, social, monetary, informational, and other capital between individuals, groups, classes, peoples, and civilizations.”— Moritz Bierling

    Moritz demonstrates the importance of using series, and repeating them over and over again. they seem wordy but they contain more veracity than almost any other form of argument.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-19 15:37:00 UTC

  • OVERSING UPDATE I’m pretty much working around the clock. I write a little in th

    OVERSING UPDATE

    I’m pretty much working around the clock. I write a little in the morning and then respond a few times during the day, but largely I”m working on the software from waking until sleeping.

    It took me most of October and part of November to get my health back, but I spend the down time doing a lot of research and planning the effort. Lets keep in mind that I was pretty out of my head at the time, but work is work and I got it done.

    What we discovered during the summer is that the app was too hard for us to update and maintain. This was somewhat intentional because I was trying to get to beta before the investment market cooled in the fall of ’15. But what we heard from investors is that we needed 50k of revenue before they would take on an enterprise product of this scale. What we also heard from Analysts is that to dominate the market we needed the accounting features that I had cut. What we heard from early beta sites was that it was still in late alpha stage. (which is true). But what I discovered when going through the code for my customer, was that it was overly dependent upon a series of factors: the speed of jquery/ractive (even if it was very well coded), mixing front and back end code, a terribly overdependence upon google datatables, a terribly unmaintainable use of callbacks to construct response objects, some serious abuses of memory, and a problematic implementation of accounting transactions.

    Now you might think this is serious but as someone who worked on Microsoft commercial products, and as someone who has worked almost exclusively with enterprise scale software (oh…. and games of course), I just view this as the normal shaking out of a rapidly prototyped and iteratively developed beta product.

    Now the fault here is mine because I had engineered my life to allow me to work on philosophy and the product at the same time, and to slowly hand over responsibility to the ukrainian development team so that I could return to the states, and start building the company from there. But these technical issues were larger than i’d planned for, and the team was frankly not as strong as i had thought (they led me to believe), and so I had not kept my nose in the code.

    My view was that it would take me 90 days to fix the existing code, or it would take me an unknown number of months to do some substantial upgrading. But that if I wanted to take the product to market at low cost and get 50K of initial business, and attract the investors that I want (and I do know who they are), I had the opportunity to stay in the states and get that done, and nearly eliminate my cash burn.

    So, during November I moved the back end to the most recent Laravel version just because if I was going to do a substantial change, I felt it was better to get it over with. Then I added the backend features that we needed to simplify what I’d found in our beta customers this summer. These are things that make debugging, adding or changing features easier.

    Then I spent (far too long) traveling to Seattle to settle some affairs, and returning in time for christmas. Then Starting the week after christmas I began spikes for the front end. And since then I’ve been converting the front end to much, much, simpler code, that is much much faster. i’m also using the design we came up with this summer so that I get a little higher contrast experience with the default theme.

    When I’ve finished that work – which I really don’t know how long it will take me, i’ll connect the functionality one service at a time. This reduces our backend to a pure API, without any UI services. The real reason this app is hard to debug is that lack of separation.

    The resulting apis will be:

    0) oversing.com (marketing site)

    1) app.oversing.com, (application)

    2) api.oversing.com, (data api)

    3) search.api.oversing.com (full text/file repo api)

    And then I just have a few new entities to add that complete the accounting system.

    Now I am not sure what this sounds like to everyone, but what it means is that I don’t have to do much application logic other than the modifications to permissions and the accounting system. So most of the work is what you’d normally do when upgrading an enterprise application to a new major release.

    And honestly, I love doing it.

    We’ll get there. Probably about the time the investment market adapts to the shock of the past two years.

    Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-19 14:59:00 UTC

  • THE MIDDLE CLASS IS THE TARGET OF PREDATION ****”I see my chief concern from sim

    THE MIDDLE CLASS IS THE TARGET OF PREDATION

    ****”I see my chief concern from simply living in a world full of relative upper class scoundrels, educated imbeciles and underclass zombies, and a middle and working class that appears to consist of the only moral people extant in western society – and they are the ones that least benefit from the current order – because they are being exterminated by it.”****

    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): 2017-02-19 14:45:00 UTC

  • GOOD TERMS FOR NEWBS —“The Cult of Non-Submission” must be one of your all-tim

    GOOD TERMS FOR NEWBS

    —“The Cult of Non-Submission” must be one of your all-time greatest hits, ranking right up there with “Market Fascism.”—Nathaniel Graham

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-19 14:21:00 UTC

  • ON THE ‘BOOK’ OR BOOKS OF NATURAL LAW (PROPERTARIANISM) Anne (All), You know, I

    ON THE ‘BOOK’ OR BOOKS OF NATURAL LAW (PROPERTARIANISM)

    Anne (All),

    You know, I can actually write a short book, “The Law of Nature”, with help from a few others in this group of ours. Although I still need a little help from the “Occultists” etc to color it a bit.

    Even a few months ago I thought I couldn’t do it yet. But I’ve realized over the past few weeks that I can. I can make a very short, very small book. In fact, I am getting close to thinking that I can write something as small as a pamphlet or paper. That’s the value of taking so long. I get better at ‘simplificating and adding brevity’.

    But you know, I’ve put more than a million dollars of my own money, and not insignificant amounts of my friends money, in to our product and I need to get it to commercial-quality done.

    That is my moral imperative.

    And honestly, evidence is that the longer I take, the more demand goes up, the better I get at saying it in fewer words.

    Our (my advisors and I) original plan still holds:

    1 – put out enough of a skeleton on the web site that I can attract early adopters and good criticism from ‘near neighbors’ in the community.

    2 – put out a booklet or pamphlet, or ‘paper’ that contains the full argument but without all the narrative and all the historical content and examples.

    3 – put out ‘the bible of western civilization’ which will forever serve as the legal, moral, and religious basis of western peoples – and all peoples who wish to transcend.

    If it was easy someone else would have figured it out. But you know, christianity put an evil dent in our people. The defeat of roman civilization put an evil dent in our people. The muslim conquest put an evil dent in humanity. and unfortunately, and quite counter-intuitively, Mathematical reasoning put an evil dent in the greek philosophers.

    The basis of western civlization was always there: the cult of sovereignty: the initiatic brotherhood of warriors.

    “I shall speak the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth even if it brings me death. I will take nothing not paid for. And I will cause no other to bear cost by my words or deeds. And if I break this oath I ask you my brothers to kill me for it.”

    If you practice this oath of initiation on a civilizational scale (and regardless of gender), with near-kin, then you will get western civlization because one cannot both keep that oath and do anything other than construct western civlization: sovereignty, truth, and markets in everything.

    All I am doing is making even an argument against this oath prosecutable to the point of death.

    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): 2017-02-19 14:13:00 UTC