Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • MAN MUST ACT? Well, sure, but to act one must PLAN at least one step: envision a

    MAN MUST ACT?

    Well, sure, but to act one must PLAN at least one step: envision an alternative and choose it. If that is not the case, one cannot claim to have acted. So action is a two sided coin: we must both plan and act, or acting has no meaning. Man must act, sure, but to act he must perceive and plan (choose) action. Even non sentient beings can react, but only a creature that can forecast the future can ‘act’. Like the golden vs the silver rule, or like liberty and property, both planning and acting are necessary for the consideration of either. As such I don’t find it very useful to rely on the requirement that man MUST act, without also taking into consideration that man must plan in order to act. All plans are theories and all actions are tests. This is an immutable property of reality. It is this relationship between planning (theories) and acting (testing) that leads us all the way to the scientific method, as complexity of that which we seek to act upon exceeds our perceptions. So while action and testimony must be reduced to personal perception, where we are capable of making judgements, we must rely upon empiricism and instrumentalist to reduce that which we cannot sense, perceive, and judge. And we must use operations to test internal consistency and external correspondence where possible. Only if we can reduce operations to the perceptible can we possibly make judgments, and only then can we say we possess the knowledge necessary to levy a truth claim.

    (sketch) (something of that order)

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-11 04:27:00 UTC

  • 20th CENTURY PHILOSOPHERS WERE SEEKING POWER, NOT TRUTH Operationalism construct

    20th CENTURY PHILOSOPHERS WERE SEEKING POWER, NOT TRUTH

    Operationalism constructs rigid correspondence, eliminates the problem of imprecise language, even non-existent language, by creating names for operations rather than allegories, normative usage, or worst of all, relying upon names of experiences rather than the actions that cause them.

    It has become increasingly frustrating, if not dismissive, to read the philosophical arguments of the 20th century, which seek to find truth in language through a variant of set operations – which of course, must be nothing more than circular. When the answer was just sitting there for everyone to pick up and run with.

    But It was apparently much better to seek truth as a means of persuasion of others, rather than to seek truth as a means of testing the content of one’s testimony. And I think the psychologists and intellectual historians could spend a lot of time analyzing that particular bit of 20th century mysticism. Or perhaps pseudoscience. Or more graciously ‘error’.

    What vanity, or error would lead a body of people to seek authority rather than duty?

    I hope the depth of that question comes across.

    We all seek power. But the truth is just as likely to impede our ambitions as assist in them. But the academy, sought to take power from the church. Moral power. Reason and Science were the first blow. Darwin was the second. The Universalist State the third. It was all in pursuit of power.

    Philosophers of the 20th century, knowingly or not, were seeking power, not truth.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-11 04:08:00 UTC

  • Sorry Hans. I have passed you now. I solved what Mises didnt. Thank you for givi

    Sorry Hans. I have passed you now. I solved what Mises didnt. Thank you for giving me shoulders to stand on. And the inspiration. But I think you cannot follow me on this journey.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-11 03:48:00 UTC

  • QUESTION? What is the difference, if any, between following the rules in Sinic s

    QUESTION?

    What is the difference, if any, between following the rules in Sinic society, and doing one’s duty in German society?

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-11 02:49:00 UTC

  • WE CAN CHANGE THAT…. “The primary problem of politics is the lag in the develo

    WE CAN CHANGE THAT….

    “The primary problem of politics is the lag in the development of political institutions behind social and economic change”– Huntington.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-10 18:18:00 UTC

  • CULTURAL VARIANTS OF TRUTH AND THE CONSEQUENCES Truth and Adherence to Rules are

    CULTURAL VARIANTS OF TRUTH AND THE CONSEQUENCES

    Truth and Adherence to Rules are two different things. (submission)

    Truth and Fidelity to Contract are two different things.

    Truth and Commitment to Duty are two different things.

    Truth and Knowledge are two different things.

    Truth as Adherence – Familialism (most of the world)

    Truth as Fidelity – Tribalism (judaism)

    Truth as Duty – Nationalism (germans)

    Truth as Science – Universalism. (english)

    That members of a community follow rules and conventions with one another, does not require whatsoever that they tell the truth to one another.

    That members of a community fulfill promises or contracts with one another, does not require whatsoever that they tell the truth to one another.

    Another community may both fulfill it’s promises, its contracts, and the commitment to tell the truth at all times regardless of cost.

    The principle of truth to to an Adherence community consists of order. The principle of ‘truth’ to a contract community consists of fidelity. The principle of truth to a truth-telling community consists of ***SCIENCE***.

    If you grasp the profundity of this statement you will understand why some cultures produce science, and some produce trade, and some produce tyranny. Some create science. And some create pseudoscience. And some create only order. Some create science, innovation, trade and trust. Others create only trade, and others create only utilitarian applications of tools.

    Small things in large numbers have vast consequences.

    When we use ‘functions” such as the verb to be, or the word ‘truth’ we do not really understand their construction, just that they are shorthand approximations that tend to work. We have just knowledge of use, not knowledge of construction.

    But the word ‘true’ means very different things in different places: science, fidelity, and adherence.

    And the consequences are astounding.

    Truth is a performative declaration. Truth claims then, to different groups, state either epistemology, fidelity, or adherence.

    I have solved the problem you know.

    It’s ethics.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-10 17:38:00 UTC

  • POLITICAL PREFERENCES ARE GENETIC – YOU DON”T CONVINCE ANYONE. As I’ve been argu

    http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/07/09/opinion/thomas-edsall-how-much-do-our-genes-influence-our-political-beliefs.html?ref=opinion&_r=2&referrerOUR POLITICAL PREFERENCES ARE GENETIC – YOU DON”T CONVINCE ANYONE.

    As I’ve been arguing, since it is impossible to change political preferences, all political debate is wasted. People vote morally. our moral differences reflect our evolutionary strategies. It’s our genes talking to us. And we talk on behalf of our genes. As such all we can do is cooperate on means, not ends. A Democratic government is, unlike the market, a monopoly an a dictatorship. The solution is to allow people to construct exchanges, not to use majority rule. Since that is only a partial solution, the remainder of the problem is only solved by devolving the central government into states or city-states that allow us all to live as we desire, and to have the market reward and punish us for living as we desire.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-10 16:54:00 UTC

  • IS IMPORTANT NOT BAD Sugar, starch, grains and carbs are. Eat like a cave man. A

    http://shar.es/NmnzyFAT IS IMPORTANT NOT BAD

    Sugar, starch, grains and carbs are.

    Eat like a cave man. All the fresh kill you can get.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-10 14:38:00 UTC

  • ARISTOCRACY AND HIGHER TRIBALISM Aristocracy can cooperate on behalf of our trib

    ARISTOCRACY AND HIGHER TRIBALISM

    Aristocracy can cooperate on behalf of our tribes, no matter what tribe we belong to. All aristocracy speaks the same language, and all of us can work to better our own tribes with the help of aristocrats from other tribes. We have no false allegiances. We have no political agendas. Our agenda is merely the advancement of the economic status of our tribes. Aristocracy under ‘higher tribalism’ is a very ‘human’ form of government. No ideologies are needed. No justification for and search for power over others is needed. All wee need is do to negotiate on behalf of our tribes large or small. Under democracy our differences are a source of conflict. Under aristocracy our differences are a source of opportunity for mutual benefit. If we are trapped in an agrarian society all that we can really do is improve the land, and fight over the land if we want greater wealth. But under industrial capitalism, we are not constrained by the productivity of our land, but by the productivity of our people. And the productivity of our people is determined by the productivity of our institutions in assisting the people in cooperating, by making possible the voluntary organization of production.

    I would much rather live in a world filled with many enterprising aristocrats feeding off the status given them by their tribes and families, than I would in a world of bureaucrats living off the status obtained by creating conflict using ideology.

    And I am pretty sure that no moral man can justify any other arrangement for any reason other than the selfish accumulation of power, and the power to oppress others to conform to his will.

    All aristocracy requires is the grant of property rights and the reciprocal guarantee of those rights – and a militia consisting of all able bodied men equally willing to guarantee those rights.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-10 12:31:00 UTC

  • “ONE MINUTE DEBATE MANAGER” The argumentative technique I use, and the one I rec

    “ONE MINUTE DEBATE MANAGER”

    The argumentative technique I use, and the one I recommend, is the ‘One Minute Manager” solution, whereby one responds to aggressive accusations or comments, particularly postmodern and feminist rallying and shaming, with equally loaded criticism and ridicule (albeit intellectualized), and then to return to the central argument.

    This technique lets you continue the rational discussion unburdened by the nonsense now that its emotional content has been cleared, rather than tainting your and response and the central argument.

    So “slap them’ quickly for their bad manners, then return to the central argument.

    If you are consistent in the use of this pattern, it tends to successfully contain all sorts of deceptive debate partners, while demonstrating to them, and to the audience, that you will not be taunted out of the central argument. And it stops your argument from being tainted by their attempt at fraud and distraction.

    It’s just hard, but it works. But then I do this kinda thing for a living.

    Slap quickly in one paragraph. Be truthful that they’re relying on childish techniques reserved for feminists, schoolgirls and betas, and then, start a new paragraph, restate the central argument, and return to conducting the central argument.

    It works. Every time you restate the central argument you draw attention to it and repetition is often the best means of persuasion.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-10 12:22:00 UTC