Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • LIBERTY IN OUR LIFETIME Aphoristic arguments, programmatic as they may be, are i

    LIBERTY IN OUR LIFETIME

    Aphoristic arguments, programmatic as they may be, are ideologically utilitarian, and place limited burden on the speaker. They teach the intuition through use and repetition, better than verbose and detailed arguments.

    Conservatives (aristocratic egalitarians) understand this. Or at least intuit it. That is why they win the moral battle for votes, despite inferior intellectuals, and arational arguments.

    One may not see it, but look at how fast the work I have done, just since December, is spreading across the internet. My terminology alone is working its way into dialog.

    Thanks to the internet, we live in a new order, with new distribution channels. In the current order, the market for information is not controlled by the paradigm of the prior generation.

    One need not seek approval or permission from the establishment – only provide the market with product it demands. 🙂

    One can sell an idea, or, one can create demand for an idea.

    One can attempt to create demand for inadequate libertarianism, or one can satisfy demand for an adequate libertarianism.

    Liberty that satisfies demand.

    Liberty in our lifetimes.

    Aristocratic Egalitarianism. Aristocracy (liberty) of the willing.

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2014-06-20 03:31:00 UTC

  • BOYCOTT, COOPERATION We can fail to agree, and conflict with one another. We can

    http://files.janjires.webnode.cz/200000472-2879a29738/Robert%20Kagan%20-%20Power%20and%20Weakness.pdfCONFLICT, BOYCOTT, COOPERATION

    We can fail to agree, and conflict with one another. We can agree to boycott (avoid) one another. Or we can agree to cooperate with one another.

    In any rational exchange for cooperation and trust, we require the positive assertion of the requirement of production, and the negative assertion of the prohibition on free riding. Cooperation is not rational without this requirement, in both positive and negative forms. In some cases we tolerate intertemporal gains and losses in the expectation that the net outcome will be to our favor.

    For the weak, cooperation or boycott, are to be agreed upon at all costs, even if parasitic, since the weak are unable to fight. For the strong, conquest, cooperation and boycott are merely a choice between preferences, where cooperation can often provide the greatest return.

    Power and weakness produce different metaphysical assumptions and logical biases.

    See Power and Weakness by Robert Kagan

    Source date (UTC): 2014-06-19 11:36:00 UTC

  • The first purpose of kings, is to provide a means for the resolution of differen

    —The first purpose of kings,

    is to provide a means for

    the resolution of differences.—

    Source date (UTC): 2014-06-19 10:29:00 UTC

  • (Hillary is trying to be likable rather than competent. Bad campaign advice. She

    (Hillary is trying to be likable rather than competent. Bad campaign advice. She isn’t likeable. She’s unpleasant, with a dishonesty she learned from Alinsky like Obama. She’s not even a very good person. Her reputation was closer to the Iron Lady’s: one of decisive seriousness, than to likability. And while one can fake competence one cannot really fake likability. Personally I think she’d be even worse than Obama has been. But at least we’d have her husband as a proxy in the white house. I can’t really see her surviving much longer. But Bill is pretty smart. We’ll see.)

    Source date (UTC): 2014-06-19 10:22:00 UTC

  • CAN LANGUAGE TRANSFORM MAN? —“The sourcebook for general semantics, Science an

    CAN LANGUAGE TRANSFORM MAN?

    —“The sourcebook for general semantics, Science and Sanity, presents general semantics as both a theoretical and a practical system whose adoption can reliably alter human behavior in the direction of greater sanity. Its author asserted that general semantics training could eventually unify people and nations. In the 1947 preface to the third edition of Science and Sanity, Korzybski wrote, “We need not blind ourselves with the old dogma that ‘human nature cannot be changed,’ for we find that it can be changed.”—

    While I agree that we can transform man, I would caution that we can transform him to the common language of science, which corresponds to reality, or we can transform him in a hundred other ways, which conflict with reality. At least most physical scientists seek to transform man’s thinking such that it corresponds to reality. Economics, as we have seen of late, transforms man to think in terms not correspondent with reality. The remaining social sciences transform him to correspond with reality even less so.

    The language of science appears to be universal and transformative for all.

    My question is why we cannot use operational language to transform ethics, economics and politics into a universal language that corresponds to reality as does that of the physical sciences.

    Korzybski, Alfred (1994). Science and Sanity: An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics (5th ed.). Brooklyn, NY: Institute of General Semantics.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-06-19 06:52:00 UTC

  • “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

    –“Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”–

    Source date (UTC): 2014-06-19 06:31:00 UTC

  • DISCIPLINES ORDERED BY CONTENT (interesting) 1) Imagination 2) Language 3) Logic

    DISCIPLINES ORDERED BY CONTENT

    (interesting)

    1) Imagination

    2) Language

    3) Logic

    4) Economics (ethics/cooperation)

    5) Physics (science)

    6) Engineering

    7) Computer science

    8) Mathematics

    Source date (UTC): 2014-06-19 06:28:00 UTC

  • VOLUNTARY EXCHANGE AS DECIDABILITY (worth repeating) —“Austrian principles are

    VOLUNTARY EXCHANGE AS DECIDABILITY

    (worth repeating)

    —“Austrian principles are intuitively constructionist (consisting of a sequence of human actions). And the ethics of voluntary transfer (the requirement that transfers consist of voluntary exchanges) are an operationalist’s method of testing each original/primitive/minimum activity (exchange) as ‘computable’ (decidable).”—

    I think that may be one of the most important paragraphs that I’ve written of late.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-06-19 04:51:00 UTC

  • LANGUAGE TELLS US LITTLE UNLESS REDUCED TO ACTION People have written software t

    LANGUAGE TELLS US LITTLE UNLESS REDUCED TO ACTION

    People have written software that generates postmodern obscurantist academic papers, submitted those papers, and had them published. Hundreds of them.

    Now, you COULD write a program that generated arguments in e-prime, using operational language, and a demonstration of construction.

    The difference is, that it would be just as impossible to construct an undetectable empty or false argument under operationalism as it is trivial to write one under postmodernism.

    Language tells us little until reduced to action.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-06-19 04:45:00 UTC

  • SAD REVELATIONS AND THE END OF HERO WORSHIP I just realized the my intellectual

    SAD REVELATIONS AND THE END OF HERO WORSHIP

    I just realized the my intellectual hero is not interested in liberty, he is interested in obtaining status by demonstrating that he is an alpha. Libertarianism was just a vehicle for demonstrating it. And that is why his arguments are so heavily loaded and framed. Sure, there is also valuable content there, but it is obscured by signal seeking, sycophancy, ridicule, empty verbalism, anti-empiricism, deceptive framing, shoddy selective reasoning, and obscurantist fallacy. So apparently one can learn a lot about the method of argument from Marxists if you study them.

    By contrast, I don’t matter. I don’t need to earn a living from my philosophical work. I’ve obtained my status already – and frankly I’d rather live simply having done it. My goal is not recognition, not status, but to obtain liberty. This is war for the soul if not survival of the west. I’m just a warrior. And I want to win. Not just for me, but for all of us.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-06-19 02:44:00 UTC