Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • Curt Doolittle shared a photo

    Curt Doolittle shared a photo.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-31 05:51:00 UTC

  • TRUTH THAT EXISTS : PERFORMATIVE: TESTIMONIAL I can describe performative truth

    TRUTH THAT EXISTS : PERFORMATIVE: TESTIMONIAL

    I can describe performative truth as extant. Can you describe platonic truth as extant? No? I didn’t think so. What you mean is that you are seeking the most parsimonious testimony you could possibly give. You use this obscurant term called ‘The Truth’. You say, ‘I seek The Truth’. But that is analogistic – because if we don’t know what it is that you’re seeking except as vague general idea. But the operational definition of ‘the truth’ is the ONLY one that can be stated. And it can ONLY be stated as testimony. Because only humans can reduce complexity to symbolic statements interpretable by humans. So when you use the platonic term ‘The Truth’, you are using a heavily loaded allegorical substitute for what is operationally performed: ‘the most parsimonious testimony I can give’.

    (Yep we are there on that one. I just gotta work on the information thing a bit.)

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-31 05:03:00 UTC

  • “SHOW ME” : A NICE TERM FOR “AN EXISTENCE PROOF” (more important than is obvious

    “SHOW ME” : A NICE TERM FOR “AN EXISTENCE PROOF”

    (more important than is obvious)

    1 – Show me the money. (Contract) Money as information.

    2 – Show me the property. (Morality) Property as information.

    3 – Show me the energy (Physics) Energy as information.

    4 – Show me the information. (Logic) Decidability as determined by information.

    The problem with apriorism is its analogistic: argument by syllogism. The problem with analytic philosophy: argument by sets. The virtue of operational philosophy: argument by information.

    ***Show me the information***

    (Getting very close on this one now. I can’t make it ring true for everyone yet, but I am getting pretty close. It will come to me.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-31 04:58:00 UTC

  • ON WHY BEAUTY MATTERS More on Truth (testimony), Beauty(plenty) and Goodness (or

    http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1euvbw_bbc-why-beauty-matters-full-version-bbc-roger-scruton_techSCRUTON ON WHY BEAUTY MATTERS

    More on Truth (testimony), Beauty(plenty) and Goodness (order)

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-31 04:29:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    http://www.unz.com/runz/does-race-exist-do-hills-exist/

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-31 04:25:00 UTC

  • PROPERTARIANISM: DECIDABILITY VIA CALCULABILITY If moral a proposition can be ex

    PROPERTARIANISM: DECIDABILITY VIA CALCULABILITY

    If moral a proposition can be expressed in propertarian terms, the matter is metaphysically extant, and free of loading. It is also rationally decidable.

    This is an incredibly cool thing if you’re a philosopher. 🙂

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-31 04:17:00 UTC

  • RICHARD DAWKINS. THAT’S NOT PHILOSOPHY. IT’S ENTERTAINMENT (I love it when I can

    http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/richard-dawkins/richard-dawkins-rape-tweets_b_5633885.htmlDEAR RICHARD DAWKINS. THAT’S NOT PHILOSOPHY. IT’S ENTERTAINMENT

    (I love it when I can out-do one of the big guns.)

    It is most interesting that none of these supposed dilemmas are dilemmas at all, but framings that take advantage of cognitive biases. If instead, we say that we insure one another as a means of ensuring voluntary cooperation between large numbers of super-predators, and that without trust, none of the circumstances where the above supposed moral dilemmas can exist. So we are far more conscious of, and respectful, of norms (the terms of reciprocal insurance) than we are of any other factor, and if we were not, then no ‘society’ would be possible.

    Morality is not a subjective matter, as we have supposed for millennia. But reducible to statements of necessity given the requirements for humans to rationally choose to cooperate in numbers greater than direct kin. The error is the application of enlightenment universal individualism to what are necessary rules of cooperation – without which cooperation is not rational, utilitarian or possible.

    I have attacked these moral fallacies in philosophy everywhere I find them. They are no more than victorian parlor games. That doesn’t mean they aren’t fun. It means that the answer is not contained in the framing of the question, but external to it.

    It’s a form of entertainment, a demonstration of the power of suggestion, but it’s not science. And it’s not good philosophy or psychology either. 🙂

    –Curt Doolittle . The Propertarian Institute . Kiev, Ukraine.–

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-31 04:15:00 UTC

  • HICKS, MACDONALD, DUCHESNE, HAIDT, DOOLITTLE You see. We have an intellectual co

    HICKS, MACDONALD, DUCHESNE, HAIDT, DOOLITTLE

    You see. We have an intellectual core. 😉

    Independently we come to similar conclusions by different means:

    – Stephen Hicks by intellectual history.

    – Kevin Macdonald by psychology, evolutionary biology, and history.

    – Ricardo Duchesne by marxism and then history and intellectual history.

    – Haidt by political psychology

    – Doolittle by calculability (not computability): property, the logic of cooperation, institutions of cooperation, and evolutionary morality. (which is a certain form of psychology in itself)

    WE HAVE DATA NOW – EVIDENCE

    Previous generations could only theorize about the outcomes of socialism/postmodernism/progressivism, Rothbardian Libertinism, and neo-conservatism. But we have data.

    And data is evidence.

    And the evidence is in.

    Unaligned or not. Organized or not. We have a movement.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-31 03:25:00 UTC

  • THE DEVELOPMENT, DESTRUCTION AND RESTORATION OF TRUTH THE CONSEQUENCES OF TRUTH

    THE DEVELOPMENT, DESTRUCTION AND RESTORATION OF TRUTH

    THE CONSEQUENCES OF TRUTH TELLING

    What we westerners didn’t and don’t understand is the importance of truth telling as constant training for seeing the world in terms that we would eventually call ‘scientific’. And, consequently, if you tell the truth then you require debate to resolve conflicts. If you conduct debate you require reason. If you conduct reason you will eventually require science (evidence). If you conduct science you will eventually run into the problem of observability and scale and require instruments (instrumentalism). You do not require a third party ideal mythology as means of arbitrating rules. If you tell the truth you can use a jury, and do not need a third party authority arbitrating disputes. Instead of a mythology you can construct common laws. If you tell the truth and have common laws you can build trade FASTER than other people build trade. And that is the secret to the west. We started the bronze age later than everyone else, and produce the first steps of the industrial revolution in greece. We were forcibly indoctrinated into authoritarianism under Christianity, but once we rid ourselves of the authoritarianism, we built the second industrial revolution, and dragged the world out of ignorance and poverty in only 500 years.

    Truth telling creates universalism. Just as much as distributed family structures do under manorialism.

    BRIBERY INTO A CULTURE OF LIES

    Meanwhile the utility of not speaking the truth, or speaking in allegory (loaded and framed language) or using overloading to force allegorical speech (monotheistic religion), is a constant competitor to the high cost of truth telling to the individual, but the high value of truth telling to the group.

    So, competitor need only bribe you marginally, and eliminate the punishment for not telling the truth, and eventually, not thinking truthfully, or even, turning lying into a ‘good’, in order easily persuade a population to justify not telling the truth.

    The easiest way to to do that is by overloading: To use the media. Public intellectuals. Academics. Writers. To saturate society with bribes to cease paying the high cost of truth telling.

    The conspiracy against truth telling. Bribery into lying. And funding it with the state redistribution, and entertainment media.

    THE RESTORATION

    The commons is our property. The property of any man who would fight to keep the land upon which we build physical and normative commons. Any shareholder can bring a suit against violations of that property. And under common law we can force the truth. And we can re-habituate truth by prosecuting and punishing liars, and those who create the incentive to lie. There is no difference between a virus that damages hardware and a meme that damages the commons of truth telling. Intellectuals produce products for the commons, and if you are paid for the production of those products then you are open to prosecution for the selling of defective and harmful products.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-31 03:21:00 UTC

  • NO. I DON”T NEED TO SOLVE IT. MACDONALD DID: ALTRUISM, GUILT, AND ALTRUISTIC PUN

    NO. I DON”T NEED TO SOLVE IT. MACDONALD DID: ALTRUISM, GUILT, AND ALTRUISTIC PUNISHMENT

    The reason I didn’t buy it the first time around is because he places a lot of emphasis on genetic tendency and I tend to treat such things as neutral, and to look for information-based (normative and metaphysical) causes to behavior first.

    While there are clear genetic differences in behavior between our tribes, I tend to look for normative answers not genetic ones. Usually they walk hand-in-hand.

    BUT I DO NEED TO DEFEND AGAINST IT.

    1) All Groups Must Act In Self Interest.

    2) Cooperation is preferable to parasitism, is preferable to conquest, is preferable to extermination. And if we cannot engage in cooperation, you may NOT engage in parasitism, conquest or extermination.

    3) No Guilt Ever. (Nor colonialism). Speak Truthfully. No Guilt.

    4) The world cannot adopt our civilization, whether genetic, normative or both.

    5) We cannot tolerate excessive dilution of our civilization, whether genetic normative or both.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-31 00:52:00 UTC