SETTING EXPECTATIONS on “THE BOOK”
I have multiple books at different stages of completion: 1) Essays selected by Michael and Alessandro, 2) Sovereignty which is the reformation of libertarianism, that I pulled out of the main book to shorten it, and 3) Whatever I end up calling the main book – I keep changing the title. 4) The Constitution which itself will be somewhere between a pamphlet and a book; And a fifth 5) which is closer to secular religion that I don’t expect to finish for a decade or more (assuming i live to finish it). Plus 6) We’re producing the Courses that teach the method, and apply it – because two things happened: I got stuck and needed to write the courseware to provide a foundation for the audience and distill it down to something digestible; and secondly, it was clear that we would need an overview.
The reason is that my main book, which is extremely detailed, full of disambiguations into series and operational language is much more like Keynes’ General Theory (Math) than Marx’s Capital (lies), and on the scope of Heidegger’s attempt at inverting noun and verb, Kant’s attempt at secular theology, Hobbes/Locke/Smith/Hume success at realism and empiricism, and Democritus/Aristotle’s success at naturalism and reason. In other words, just as Aristotle created reason and naturalism, the British Enlightenment created empiricism and realism, Darwin, Menger, Maxwell(et all), Spencer, created science and the precursor to operationalism, I’m at the end of the operationalist stream thanks to Hayek (distributed knowledge, law as falsification), Popper (Knowledge, falsification) , Brouwer, Bridgman, Poincare (operationalism as falsification); Turing, the analytics (operational logic as falsification), Chomsky (continuous recursion) and Mandelbrot(operationalism at scale); And updated with what we’ve learned from cognitive science (language and the language facility, experimental psychology, the study of the brain’s functional areas, and neurology that facilitates them.)
What does this mean? The Book is not going to reduce all of the Doolittle’s Propertarian Project of rendering the group strategy of western civlization into a formal logic and law to compete with the semitic abrahamic books of deceit, into common language prose – just the opposite. It is a book for other thought leaders, and would be critics.
When the constitution is done (it isn’t, and john’s right to pressure me to work on it) that will be, as I understand it, the ‘short version’ of everything in a language everyone can – with effort – understand. And then if necessary refer to the big book for further explanation and study (think of it as a reference work). The Constitution – which is a *template* for the construction of ALL human polities regardless of distribution of decision making and returns on gains, is the culmination of the work. The Preface to the Constitution “The White Law” will explain the law beyond which none may tread without incurring retaliation by european men.
At present we are trying to get Bill and the other guys (i don’t want to commit them by naming them) to teach. But they must have a course or two to teach. This requires I finish my work on the Foundations course and Bill finish his (ePrime-operational prose and more), and I put both of our new content contributions into the book, then finish editing it (which is difficult because it’s technical work).
I have to repeat this notice regularly but each time I add a bit of detail. Part of my strategy was to create demand for the work by working in public. However, I want to perform due diligence against misrepresentation by frequently setting expectations, particularly of newbies, that if you want some sophomoric ideology to promote under democracy this isn’t it and I wouldn’t do it.
This is the natural law under which men agree NOT to engage in conquest, predation, enserfement, enslavement, or extermination – and any violation by any excuse whatsoever will simply justify that action. In other words, this strategy, this work, this law, this constitution, is a via-negativa argument for cooperation. It is not the benefits of cooperating without parasitism. It is that the only reason not to prey upon is if we engage in full reciprocity – productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange of demonstrated interests free of imposition of costs by externality upon the demonstrated interests of one another’s ingroups.
This is european civilization with teeth.
Curt Doolittle
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-23 12:40:00 UTC