Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • DEFLATING TERMS BY THE MEANS OF CONSISTENCY IN THE DIMENSIONS THAT THEY MEASURE.

    DEFLATING TERMS BY THE MEANS OF CONSISTENCY IN THE DIMENSIONS THAT THEY MEASURE.

    (important)

    DIMENSIONS AND MEANS OF CONSISTENCY-TESTING

    1. Axioms = Logic (words) : internal consistency : Declared.

    2. Theories (‘laws’) = Science (actions) : external correspondence : Discovered

    3. Algorithms (operations) = Testimony : Constructed.

    4. Rational Choice (incentives) = Preference or Good : intuited.

    5. Law (Reciprocity) = Decidability: Demonstrated.

    COHERENCE REQUIRES CLOSURE

    1. No means of consistency-testing within any dimension provides CLOSURE. (‘incompleteness’).

    2. Closure is increased only by appeal to the next higher dimension.

    3. Closure is impossible for other than tautologies, but warranty of due diligence is producible by test of COHERENCE, which is CONSISTENCY in all dimensions.

    PROOFS?

    1. A proof is a test of internal consistency.

    2. A proof is therefore a test of possibility.

    3. All proofs are open to falsification by appeal COHERENCE, meaning the due diligence of testing every dimension for consistency.

    4. Ergo the function of logic and axioms is only to falsify the false, not prove the true. This is the ‘difficult’ part of ‘relearning’ that mathematics (positional naming) and the attempt to have logic (language) mirror one another, has led to the near universal fallacy that proof provides truth rather than due diligence against error, bias, and deceit.

    5. Egro, logics FALSIFY but they do not convey truth content – except in the minority and reductio set of cases – in logic which are akin to prime numbers in mathematics: rare.

    (This is what Curtus Maximus is explaining via Godel).

    In the sense of Rothbard/Mises/Hoppe the (((fraud))) of kantian logic combined with the (((fraud))) of CONFLATION, mises attempted to conflate logic, empiricism, science, morality, and law into one ‘monopoly ‘ akin to jewish law, or kant’s attempt at secular restatement of the church’s faith – and failed.

    Rothbard attempted to conflate liberty with jewish libertinism. Freedom with libertinism. and thereby to license parasitism upon the commons, which is the group evolutionary strategy of his ancestors as well as women. Whether his ancestral group strategy of parasitism is genetic or cultural or a combination is something we do not know. We do however know that all his kin exhibit this behavior just as all women exhibit this behavior.

    Ergo, everything rothbard says is a lie. Mises might be rescued from his sophisms and pseudoscience if it were not for Rothbard and Hoppe’s defense of rothbard. But the (((Mises institute))) has done profound harm to our civilization by preserving and promoting Rothbard (rand)’s justification of libertinism, rather than the anglo saxon rights of anglo saxons: sovereignty, reciprocity, truth, duty, charity, and every (enfranchised) man a sheriff.

    As far as I know, the only epistemological framework is free association > hypothesis > theory > law > Failure > Repeat to revise (refine).

    All of the vocabulary of ‘logic’ and proof, all of which is justificationary and false, is now reduced to superstitious language. And all attempts to say ‘prove it’ are also justificationary and false. One cannot prove a truth, one can only ask for sufficient information to falsify it. And contrary to the entire history of philosophy, the principle means of falsification is deconfliction, completing scope and limits, accounting for cost, testing the possibility of action, rationality of action, and reciprocity of display word and deed.

    The people who invented lying are as good at lying as the people who invented truth are good at truth.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-12 12:45:00 UTC

  • by Bill Joslin Compatiblism – degrees of bounded freedom. It’s about accounting

    by Bill Joslin

    Compatiblism – degrees of bounded freedom.

    It’s about accounting for the causal chain and if the actor contributes to the causal chain (opposed to a causal chain being proof of no will). We can contribute to our causal chain because we can imagine alternate states of affairs. In that imagining we affect the causal chain.

    So the effect of that imagining will be varied. You can imagine via nonsense or reason – post-structuralism or post-positivism, mysticism or naturalism.

    You can chose, but you can’t avoid the consequences of that choice, no matter how much you imagine the state of affairs to be different than it actually is.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-12 09:20:00 UTC

  • “…Yet if cattle or horses or lions had hands and could draw, And could sculpt

    —-“…Yet if cattle or horses or lions had hands and could draw, And could sculpt like men, then the horses would draw their gods, Like horses, and cattle like cattle; and each they would shape. Bodies of gods in the likeness, each kind, of their own.” — Xenophanes

    via @I_Vae_Victis_I

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-12 00:52:00 UTC

  • 1993. Seattle. 1st and Yessler. Galleries, Shops. Allora’s red hair in the sun.

    1993. Seattle. 1st and Yessler. Galleries, Shops. Allora’s red hair in the sun. Coffee is big. Smells Like Teen Spirit. Key Arena. Fountain. Kids. Alice in Chains Rooster. Visiting other artists. Wall was down. Tech was like printing money. Everything was cheap. Anything was possible. And we were making it possible. And if you were there and lived through it, more so than the google/fb/sf thing, more than paris and berlin, it was geek paradise. That I got to live from 1980 to 2000 … I can’t believe .. only a few people get a chance like that a century.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-12 00:45:00 UTC

  • Who is John Mark?

    Who is John Mark?

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-12 00:20:00 UTC

  • “John Mark white pilled me” — Matt F. (No higher compliment is to be had. Lawgi

    “John Mark white pilled me” — Matt F.

    (No higher compliment is to be had. Lawgivers are silent without Preachers.)

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-12 00:19:00 UTC

  • TERMINOLOGY: NO SHORTCUT TO UNDERSTANDING worth repeating One does not criticize

    TERMINOLOGY: NO SHORTCUT TO UNDERSTANDING

    worth repeating

    One does not criticize either terminology or deviation from normative definitions, but instead, the precision of the definitions, such that we are free of opportunity for conflation, and subsequent error.

    Each field uses terminology particular to it, and propertarianism (law) uses universals (operational names in series) across all fields. In either case we define terms that eliminate the error and potential for error in colloquial speech (“ordinary language”).

    In other words no field is, can be, reduced to ordinary language without the introduction of the vast ignorance and error that separates ordinary language from scientific language.

    That is because the existence of, and market demands for science and scientific prose evolved precisely to compensate for the ignorance, error, bias, fictionalism, and deceit in ordinary language.

    And moreover, since propertarianism serves as the scientific language of social science – including history, economics, law, sociology, morality, ethics, psychology, and language itself – we are forcing into the political discourse the same adaptation as did the revolution in physical science: and with equally disruptive consequences to normative language, ideas, ideology, religion, and language of those disciplines.

    So the criticism that we should use the colloquial speech in our effort to change social sciences from sophisms and pseudoscience dependent upon intuition and projection, and monopoly and conformity, into a form of calculation as is used in the other sciences, and divisions of cognition and labor, and conditions of cooperation, competition, and war, is rather … ridiculous really.

    All systems of symbolic calculation whether they be the small difference between spoken language and written language, or great differences between spoken language, written language, arithmetic, accounting, geometry, the calculus, relativity, chemistry, biology, ecology, economics, require training.

    The great difference is that we are all more invested in our daily use of the psychological, social, and political, such that we defend those investments no matter how bad they are.

    Unfortunately the average idiot who will readily say he understands neither advanced mathematics, economics, or subatomic physics will not similarly question his understanding of ethics, morality, and politics – thereby demonstrating his lack of agency due to malinvestment and ignorance, and genetic, gender, class, cultural bias.

    Ergo, there is no shortcut to knowledge. Calculation is counter intuitive – particularly in intuitionistic subjects.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-12 00:18:00 UTC

  • OR PRESERVED HEADS? THE GAULS (GAELS) METHOD

    https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/nov/07/the-gauls-really-did-embalm-the-severed-heads-of-enemies-research-showsSHRUNKEN OR PRESERVED HEADS? THE GAULS (GAELS) METHOD

    https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/nov/07/the-gauls-really-did-embalm-the-severed-heads-of-enemies-research-shows

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-11 21:53:00 UTC

  • ON AMERICA AT THE EDGE

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BclcpfVn2rgZEIHAN ON AMERICA AT THE EDGE.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-11 18:54:00 UTC

  • We are the only gods. The vast majority of us are just afraid to accept the resp

    We are the only gods. The vast majority of us are just afraid to accept the responsibility.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-11 17:57:00 UTC