Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • From an Insightful Dispute Between Africans and Americans on Twitter

    Feb 15, 2020, 12:53 PM (Content Warning!!!) (This might be offensive!!!) This conversation is important. Why? Because we still find disputes between the more developed more rational and scientific, and less developed civilizations – particularly indian, islamic, jewish, and african. And we still find disputes between the classes: theological-occult-sophistry, marxist-postmodernist-feminist pseudoscience, and those of us in confucian-aristotelian civilizations (science and reason). While the dispute between Protestant-Catholic-Russian, Chinese, korean-japanese, and even christian pacific is limited to what is in our interest and in our preferences, and in our political organization and social responsibility that is the limit of our variation. We are all aristotelians now. But we have also succeeded at soft eugenics. So here is the (content warning!!!) dispute between an african referring to ‘african epistemology’ instead of ‘justification for group strategy’. And what I assume are members of the anglosphere explaining european epistemology. “Whiteness” is the pejorative term used by the african fellow to refer to the group strategy of western civlization. So “Whiteness” = “Racism” and use of Whiteness ~= A Marxist Critique. —“WHITENESS: Whiteness questions African epistemology simply because there’s no room in their normative framework to process this! I bet there’s a non-African you know who is an “expert” on African matters.”— —“Is there ever a scenario in which a white person questioning the thought in your head might do so because the thought itself, regardless of its origin, is nonsensical, unkind, and/or disturbing–in theory?”— —“No. And even you asking that is whiteness in action because you seem to think that white people can read other people’s thoughts.”— —“So in your opinion, any thought originating from a white person is automatically invalidated, correct?”— · —“That’s not what I’m saying. Understand “whiteness” devoid of race. Whiteness is an ideology of domination. Its diabolical. Its anti- spiritual. Its anti-human. The more need to have it understood, deconstructed and demystified.”— 1) Whiteness = Realism, Naturalism, Operationalism, Empiricism(Science), Reciprocity and Truth Regardless of Cost(Natural Law), Voluntary Markets in association, cooperation, reproduction, production, commons, and polities(Meritocracy), and suppression of underclass reproduction. 2) Whiteness = Profiting from the domestication of animal man into civilized man using science, natural law, meritocracy, suppression of underclass reproduction, and direction of those savings to the production of the high returns on high trust commons. 3) Whiteness = The fastest means of evolving man into gods we imagine by the use of the most adaptive artistic, intellectual, economic, social political means possible, under the most prosperous, peaceful, and enjoyable means possible. 4) Whiteness = The means by which we dragged mankind kicking and screaming, one civilization and generation at a time, out of ignorance, superstition, hard labor, poverty, hunger, starvation, disease, suffering, early death, and victimhood under an uncaring universe. 5) Whiteness = Aristocracy, Elitism, Heroism, Excellence, Beauty, Truth, Reciprocity, Duty. And the reason you hate “Whiteness” is because you cannot meet that standard of excellence. It is because your genes cannot lie, like your mind and your words. 6) But here is the test: While only europeans could have invented Whiteness, any people can practice “Whiteness” if they are willing to suppress the reproduction of the underclasses – which for some nations constitutes the vast majority of the people – so it’s politically impossible or impractical. 8) Whiteness is the desire to transcend into gods, and not to devolve into animals again. Whiteness (white man’s burden) was our desire to profit from dragging mankind with us into godhood under the presumption that we could all be equal. But you rejected us – and we agreed. Edit

  • The Real Power Analysis

    At the end of the day, all power flows from the end of a g-u-n. “But any rightwing force would be demonized heavily by our enemies.” Of course. Always go back to the main point – no matter how badly our enemies slander & demonize us, they have no enforcement arm they can fully/confidently count on. This is a very different situation to WW2 where the USA, its population without internet/alternative info sources, was rallied to defeat Germany with military might. Who are our enemies going to rally to crush “those evil Trump supporters”? Our military voted 2/3rds Trump. Cops questionable but the only data I’ve seen shows they are at least at a basic level mostly pro-2A, and are only staffed for barebones crime suppression anyway. Even if our enemies could count 100% on those 2 groups (they can’t, but just for the sake of argument), sheer numbers and 4G warfare aspect are still massively in our favor. Also most sheriffs seem to be far better than cops. Some say our enemies will bring in UN troops, as if that would somehow turn the tide. No one who says that knows how small UN troops are in number. Some say the establishment will bring in chinese troops. But China has very little expeditionary military capability, and more importantly there are a lot of other reasons the establishment is highly unlikely to do that, & China would be highly unlikely to agree. China’s economy is totally dependent on ours. It would also, given that our military voted 2/3rds Trump, amount to the invasion of one nuclear power by another – highly, highly unlikely. If the US govt has to bring in foreign armies to kill their own citizens, it’s an open admission that they have very little favor with their own citizens & can’t control their own population. Even if they did bring in UN or foreign troops, it would activate far more rightwingers to fight – any moral hesitation rightwingers have (the only thing currently holding back the right – “maybe there’s another solution” – would instantly disappear), and it would be open season, all-out, no-holds-barred war. The establishment does not want this. They want to manage the status quo decline & skim off the top parasitically. Massive conflict is very bad for biz. Trillions lost per day. The whole world (the world economy largely depends on USA) would be begging to restore normalcy. This is a very different situation than Germany in WW2, because the “teams” that have ability to project force, and the incentives of those teams, are very different in their power balance. Our enemies’ only possible enforcement arms: U.S. military – voted 2/3rds Trump Cops – mostly pro-2A, staffed only for bare minimum crime suppression Sheriffs – largely on the Right side UN troops – small in number, negative consequences of bringing them in to U.S. soil exceed the benefits Chinese troops – extremely unlikely for various reasons, negative consequences exceed benefits Other foreign troops – extremely unlikely for various reasons, negative consequences exceed the benefits, foreign troops would be essentially paid mercenaries, we’d be fighting for our lives, our people, our civilization Left grassroots – far, far fewer guns than us, not “into” force/guns as a lifestyle/norm Inner city gangs – more of a liability than a benefit to the left, especially in 4G scenario Mexican/Central American drug cartels – relatively small in terms of sheer numbers, PR nightmare to employ FBI/other 3-letter agency goons – small in number NPCs/normies – will not fight for either side, want comfort/ease, some/many may hate the Right but all will benefit the Right bcuz they will cry out for restoration of order at any cost. There, that’s it – a full list of our enemies’ potential enforcement arms. Pretty pitiful. And even IF they could get the entire U.S. military (2M, many not frontlines), all cops (600k), and the entire Chinese military (2M, many not frontlines) to obey them 100%, we would still outnumber them 20-to-1 (roughly 40 million grassroots rightwing men), our team would also have 10 times more former U.S. military than our enemies current militaries, and our enemies would still have major difficulty countering 4G warfare. This answers the question “Does the Right have a chance of winning in a conflict?” (Yes. A very, very good chance. Even if our numbers were dramatically lower than they are, ease of 4G warfare BY ITSELF – the difficulty of defeating it & maintaining/restoring order – gives the Right a major advantage.) The next question is “To what extent will the Right fight? (How many will fight?)” That, each man must answer for himself. But the excuse “I don’t know if we have a chance of winning” is illegitimate.

  • The Real Power Analysis

    At the end of the day, all power flows from the end of a g-u-n. “But any rightwing force would be demonized heavily by our enemies.” Of course. Always go back to the main point – no matter how badly our enemies slander & demonize us, they have no enforcement arm they can fully/confidently count on. This is a very different situation to WW2 where the USA, its population without internet/alternative info sources, was rallied to defeat Germany with military might. Who are our enemies going to rally to crush “those evil Trump supporters”? Our military voted 2/3rds Trump. Cops questionable but the only data I’ve seen shows they are at least at a basic level mostly pro-2A, and are only staffed for barebones crime suppression anyway. Even if our enemies could count 100% on those 2 groups (they can’t, but just for the sake of argument), sheer numbers and 4G warfare aspect are still massively in our favor. Also most sheriffs seem to be far better than cops. Some say our enemies will bring in UN troops, as if that would somehow turn the tide. No one who says that knows how small UN troops are in number. Some say the establishment will bring in chinese troops. But China has very little expeditionary military capability, and more importantly there are a lot of other reasons the establishment is highly unlikely to do that, & China would be highly unlikely to agree. China’s economy is totally dependent on ours. It would also, given that our military voted 2/3rds Trump, amount to the invasion of one nuclear power by another – highly, highly unlikely. If the US govt has to bring in foreign armies to kill their own citizens, it’s an open admission that they have very little favor with their own citizens & can’t control their own population. Even if they did bring in UN or foreign troops, it would activate far more rightwingers to fight – any moral hesitation rightwingers have (the only thing currently holding back the right – “maybe there’s another solution” – would instantly disappear), and it would be open season, all-out, no-holds-barred war. The establishment does not want this. They want to manage the status quo decline & skim off the top parasitically. Massive conflict is very bad for biz. Trillions lost per day. The whole world (the world economy largely depends on USA) would be begging to restore normalcy. This is a very different situation than Germany in WW2, because the “teams” that have ability to project force, and the incentives of those teams, are very different in their power balance. Our enemies’ only possible enforcement arms: U.S. military – voted 2/3rds Trump Cops – mostly pro-2A, staffed only for bare minimum crime suppression Sheriffs – largely on the Right side UN troops – small in number, negative consequences of bringing them in to U.S. soil exceed the benefits Chinese troops – extremely unlikely for various reasons, negative consequences exceed benefits Other foreign troops – extremely unlikely for various reasons, negative consequences exceed the benefits, foreign troops would be essentially paid mercenaries, we’d be fighting for our lives, our people, our civilization Left grassroots – far, far fewer guns than us, not “into” force/guns as a lifestyle/norm Inner city gangs – more of a liability than a benefit to the left, especially in 4G scenario Mexican/Central American drug cartels – relatively small in terms of sheer numbers, PR nightmare to employ FBI/other 3-letter agency goons – small in number NPCs/normies – will not fight for either side, want comfort/ease, some/many may hate the Right but all will benefit the Right bcuz they will cry out for restoration of order at any cost. There, that’s it – a full list of our enemies’ potential enforcement arms. Pretty pitiful. And even IF they could get the entire U.S. military (2M, many not frontlines), all cops (600k), and the entire Chinese military (2M, many not frontlines) to obey them 100%, we would still outnumber them 20-to-1 (roughly 40 million grassroots rightwing men), our team would also have 10 times more former U.S. military than our enemies current militaries, and our enemies would still have major difficulty countering 4G warfare. This answers the question “Does the Right have a chance of winning in a conflict?” (Yes. A very, very good chance. Even if our numbers were dramatically lower than they are, ease of 4G warfare BY ITSELF – the difficulty of defeating it & maintaining/restoring order – gives the Right a major advantage.) The next question is “To what extent will the Right fight? (How many will fight?)” That, each man must answer for himself. But the excuse “I don’t know if we have a chance of winning” is illegitimate.

  • Thoughts on Peterson, Wilber, and More

    Feb 18, 2020, 12:38 PM THOUGHTS ON PETERSON, WILBER, AND MORE by Michael Churchill, with CurtD Regarding Jordan Peterson and Ken Wilber: Wilber’s life arc is quite interesting and perhaps can provide a roadmap for Peterson post-nervous breakdown. Wilber was a bit of a mentor to Peterson and both men worked on the same problem: How to distinguish between internal truth and external truth:

    • Internal truth is what I feel to be true (including the realm of feelings themselves).

    • External truth is what survives falsification in real-world tests.

    Both men came to realize that the the strategy of the rank-and-file left is to deliberately conflate internal feelings and externally verifiable fact. (Hence the growth of the mantra “Well that’s my truth.”) When Wilber figured this out, he did the honorable thing and dropped out of the public eye for 5-10 years. Recall that Wilber was almost the Peterson of the ’90s: He started out a darling of the Oprah/Clinton set and was teed up to become a huge star. But two things happened: His wife got sick and his work started to lead him in disturbing, anti-left directions. So he dropped out of the spotlight. When he got back to work, Wilber embraced the implications of his own model and moved rightward. He lost his fey mannerisms and embraced the bearing of the college football player he had once been. My view is that Peterson’s nervous breakdown was caused by his failure to live up to his own extremely high standards. The man who won every debate was recently CRUSHED in a debate on his own website centering on a critical aspect of his worldview: That we are the drivers of our own destiny and group evolutionary strategy is not a relevant player in the game. (Or, more specifically, Peterson was arguing that there is no group who acts on an evolutionary strategy to deliberately undermine western civilization.) Peterson collapsed because he couldn’t escape the implications of this problem: He either had to admit defeat on this point and risk losing his empire, or accept defeat and ALSO risk losing his empire. Thus it seems the proper path for Peterson is to do what Wilber did. Drop out for five years. Recover. Re-work the model to fix its failures and keep what is good. Do not try to please the masters, nor necessarily challenge the masters in public if that doesn’t feel appealing. That is my $0.02 on the matter. by Eric Danelaw: This is a great narrative. Really has me thinking…. I wonder if you could weave campbell in there – as you suggested, as someone who didn’t have those problems. I’d throw in that the problem is jung-christianity where most of us use cognitive science and behavioral economics today. These fantasy literary worlds are disconnected from reality. He uses them because in his practice he can use suggestion rather than direct exposition to ‘seduce’ people to circumvent their natural resistance to correction by others. This is the entire value of suggestive experience (religion, theology, myth, parable, literature, history – suspension of disbelief opens us to suggestion by blame avoidance.) As for causality I’ll take peterson’s meteoric rise, continuous exposure, workload, wife’s cancer, and susceptibility to medicine as the principle cause – but I’ll agree with your consequence. Peterson wasn’t in a position where he could go thru a withdrawal that long in that condition without inflicting suffering on his family – already suffering from his wife’s cancer. And he couldn’t maintain public appearances, and he put his new found income stream at risk. And he had nowhere safe to go and recover. So that’s an awful lot sitting on your shoulders for anyone. But, what I got out of your post was … well, that it hadn’t occurred to me that i have no psychological dream world to run to so I have no psychological dream world to fail me. And that as such the stoics (mindfulness) and epicureans (live well), were simply right all along. And until you wrote this post I didn’t think that the opposite of these ideological and theological frames might be true: that they don’t provide comfort they provide sedation, so that the failure of the dream world is worse than the cost of learning mindfulness. by Michael Churchill Wow that is an awesome read. The moral of Peterson’s collapse is that building your house on a dreamworld — no matter how appealing and helpful in the short term — risks devastating consequences when it collapses. This raises the question of whether Peterson FELT he was building a house of cards as he was going along. It doesn’t seem that way to me. I watched many hours of his lectures before I ever came to your critique of him and I thought his work was pretty solid. Like his analysis of Pinnochio. That was good stuff. And his one-man war against the speech codes in Canada was inspired. Peterson’s only a few years older than me, so very likely he also grew up surrounded by the Joseph Campbell paradigm (follow your bliss etc). I think most people who came of age in the late 70s and early 80s walk around with a Nietzche/Pirsig/Camus/Campbell paradigm in their heads! And he had a professional career fully invested in the literary model. (Plus he is quite clearly a touchy/feely literary type.) by CurtD I never thought of it before but the Nietzsche/Camus/Campbell thing was definitely influential. Edit

  • Thoughts on Peterson, Wilber, and More

    Feb 18, 2020, 12:38 PM THOUGHTS ON PETERSON, WILBER, AND MORE by Michael Churchill, with CurtD Regarding Jordan Peterson and Ken Wilber: Wilber’s life arc is quite interesting and perhaps can provide a roadmap for Peterson post-nervous breakdown. Wilber was a bit of a mentor to Peterson and both men worked on the same problem: How to distinguish between internal truth and external truth:

    • Internal truth is what I feel to be true (including the realm of feelings themselves).

    • External truth is what survives falsification in real-world tests.

    Both men came to realize that the the strategy of the rank-and-file left is to deliberately conflate internal feelings and externally verifiable fact. (Hence the growth of the mantra “Well that’s my truth.”) When Wilber figured this out, he did the honorable thing and dropped out of the public eye for 5-10 years. Recall that Wilber was almost the Peterson of the ’90s: He started out a darling of the Oprah/Clinton set and was teed up to become a huge star. But two things happened: His wife got sick and his work started to lead him in disturbing, anti-left directions. So he dropped out of the spotlight. When he got back to work, Wilber embraced the implications of his own model and moved rightward. He lost his fey mannerisms and embraced the bearing of the college football player he had once been. My view is that Peterson’s nervous breakdown was caused by his failure to live up to his own extremely high standards. The man who won every debate was recently CRUSHED in a debate on his own website centering on a critical aspect of his worldview: That we are the drivers of our own destiny and group evolutionary strategy is not a relevant player in the game. (Or, more specifically, Peterson was arguing that there is no group who acts on an evolutionary strategy to deliberately undermine western civilization.) Peterson collapsed because he couldn’t escape the implications of this problem: He either had to admit defeat on this point and risk losing his empire, or accept defeat and ALSO risk losing his empire. Thus it seems the proper path for Peterson is to do what Wilber did. Drop out for five years. Recover. Re-work the model to fix its failures and keep what is good. Do not try to please the masters, nor necessarily challenge the masters in public if that doesn’t feel appealing. That is my $0.02 on the matter. by Eric Danelaw: This is a great narrative. Really has me thinking…. I wonder if you could weave campbell in there – as you suggested, as someone who didn’t have those problems. I’d throw in that the problem is jung-christianity where most of us use cognitive science and behavioral economics today. These fantasy literary worlds are disconnected from reality. He uses them because in his practice he can use suggestion rather than direct exposition to ‘seduce’ people to circumvent their natural resistance to correction by others. This is the entire value of suggestive experience (religion, theology, myth, parable, literature, history – suspension of disbelief opens us to suggestion by blame avoidance.) As for causality I’ll take peterson’s meteoric rise, continuous exposure, workload, wife’s cancer, and susceptibility to medicine as the principle cause – but I’ll agree with your consequence. Peterson wasn’t in a position where he could go thru a withdrawal that long in that condition without inflicting suffering on his family – already suffering from his wife’s cancer. And he couldn’t maintain public appearances, and he put his new found income stream at risk. And he had nowhere safe to go and recover. So that’s an awful lot sitting on your shoulders for anyone. But, what I got out of your post was … well, that it hadn’t occurred to me that i have no psychological dream world to run to so I have no psychological dream world to fail me. And that as such the stoics (mindfulness) and epicureans (live well), were simply right all along. And until you wrote this post I didn’t think that the opposite of these ideological and theological frames might be true: that they don’t provide comfort they provide sedation, so that the failure of the dream world is worse than the cost of learning mindfulness. by Michael Churchill Wow that is an awesome read. The moral of Peterson’s collapse is that building your house on a dreamworld — no matter how appealing and helpful in the short term — risks devastating consequences when it collapses. This raises the question of whether Peterson FELT he was building a house of cards as he was going along. It doesn’t seem that way to me. I watched many hours of his lectures before I ever came to your critique of him and I thought his work was pretty solid. Like his analysis of Pinnochio. That was good stuff. And his one-man war against the speech codes in Canada was inspired. Peterson’s only a few years older than me, so very likely he also grew up surrounded by the Joseph Campbell paradigm (follow your bliss etc). I think most people who came of age in the late 70s and early 80s walk around with a Nietzche/Pirsig/Camus/Campbell paradigm in their heads! And he had a professional career fully invested in the literary model. (Plus he is quite clearly a touchy/feely literary type.) by CurtD I never thought of it before but the Nietzsche/Camus/Campbell thing was definitely influential. Edit

  • On Farmers in The Division of Labor

    (The flip side of “I, Pencil”.) (probably an important lesson) Military(organization of territory) <> Judiciary (organization of cooperation-contract) <> Finance (organization of money(stored time)) <> Entrepreneurship (Organization of opportunity, capital, people) <> Professionals (organization of production(calculation)) <> Managers (Organization of people) <> Producers (Organization of resources) <> Distributors (organization of distribution) <> Trade (organization of transactions) <> Consumers (organization of consumption) <> Parents (organization of reproduction) <> teachers, priests, public intellectuals politicians ( sedation, facilitation, and amelioration of stress arising from scarcity, individual and familial irrelevance, and alienation in the division of labor upon which they depend.) Given the problem of “I,Pencil” (distribution of knowledge), an individual farmer has to input a lot of diverse knowledge and effort for low return on investment, in no small part because petroleum products, industrialization, fertilizer, feed were fully commoditized. A farmer organizes primary resources (animals, food stuffs) and as such must be a skilled craftsman (organizers of specialized resources) at the very limit of craftsman’s capital (tools – no other craftsman requires so many tools). But the returns on the organization of resources are small – there are few multipliers. As you move up the production hierarchy you are responsible for organizing more and more and more people – where there are multipliers. This is why Marx is wrong. In order to organize people by rational incentives, one must produce marginal competitive differences by which to influence their choices. As such the entire difficulty in organizing production is organizing the human beings in a vast network to engage in it with nothing other than the bribe of doing the work (payment).

  • On Farmers in The Division of Labor

    (The flip side of “I, Pencil”.) (probably an important lesson) Military(organization of territory) <> Judiciary (organization of cooperation-contract) <> Finance (organization of money(stored time)) <> Entrepreneurship (Organization of opportunity, capital, people) <> Professionals (organization of production(calculation)) <> Managers (Organization of people) <> Producers (Organization of resources) <> Distributors (organization of distribution) <> Trade (organization of transactions) <> Consumers (organization of consumption) <> Parents (organization of reproduction) <> teachers, priests, public intellectuals politicians ( sedation, facilitation, and amelioration of stress arising from scarcity, individual and familial irrelevance, and alienation in the division of labor upon which they depend.) Given the problem of “I,Pencil” (distribution of knowledge), an individual farmer has to input a lot of diverse knowledge and effort for low return on investment, in no small part because petroleum products, industrialization, fertilizer, feed were fully commoditized. A farmer organizes primary resources (animals, food stuffs) and as such must be a skilled craftsman (organizers of specialized resources) at the very limit of craftsman’s capital (tools – no other craftsman requires so many tools). But the returns on the organization of resources are small – there are few multipliers. As you move up the production hierarchy you are responsible for organizing more and more and more people – where there are multipliers. This is why Marx is wrong. In order to organize people by rational incentives, one must produce marginal competitive differences by which to influence their choices. As such the entire difficulty in organizing production is organizing the human beings in a vast network to engage in it with nothing other than the bribe of doing the work (payment).

  • Quick Translation Beween Philosophy and Propertarianism (natural Law)

    Feb 20, 2020, 8:51 AM Metaphysics: Realism, naturalism, operationalism, empiricism, survival, compatibilism, cooperation, propertarianism, acquisitionism, action. Operationalism: testimony in operational terms (one continuous consistent commensurable system of falsifiable measurement) Science: testimony in empirical terms (observation of demonstrated evidence) expressed in a commensurable terms (operational). Ontology: realism/naturalism, soft determinism, three faculties: physical, intuitionistic, and mind as motion(no name for it in philosophical terms: experience consists of continuous recursive hierarchical temporal memory – memory of memory continuously constructed by continuous prediction from sequences of sense perception.) the problem is getting people from the observer to perception consisting of change (action) not state. Epistemology: Competition between justification(hypothesis), operation(theory) and empiricism(evidence) at increasing scales (self-reason via positiva-justification, via-negativa and via-positiva-tests, via-negativa market survival) Truthfulness: Due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, deceit, in performative, promissory testimony in complete sentences that are consistent, correspondent, operational, limited, complete, and coherent. Axiology: value: acquisitionism: acquisition of property in toto defined by demonstrated interest (IOW self reported values never reflect demonstrated preference, and demonstrated preference can always be expressed as acquisition of property in toto -a gain yielding a fully commensurable system of measurement), Ethics: Reciprocity – via negativa, all ethnical and moral questions are decidable by tests of fully accounted reciprocity. In other words: I’m describing economics. Which, as others have stated before me, appears to function as the union of the disciplines. Philosophy: Do we think philosophy produces Truth, Meaning, or Choice? As far as I can tell Law, Economics, Science, Mathematics, and the human logical facility (differences in constant relations) produce testimony. As far as I can tell The Grammars (which you don’t know yet) produce the most parsimonious paradigm. Philosophy considers ideals, rarely if ever costs, means of production(models), possibilities(consequences and externalities). So what is the remaining function of philosophy? Reorganization of preferences and means of achieving them given the truth we have identified with “science in toto”: (law, economics, science, math, logical facility). In other words, discovery of truth (science) selection of preference (philosophy), sedation or abandonment (theology). Which makes sense to me since Math(measurement), Science(matter) and Economics (people) produce evidence, law produces testimony and decidability independent of preference, and philosophy produces preference, and as far as I can tell theology allows people to escape the work of philosophy, law, and science – leading to graceful failure as our knowledge and ability decreases from science to norm or law, to philosophy, to theology.

  • Quick Translation Beween Philosophy and Propertarianism (natural Law)

    Feb 20, 2020, 8:51 AM Metaphysics: Realism, naturalism, operationalism, empiricism, survival, compatibilism, cooperation, propertarianism, acquisitionism, action. Operationalism: testimony in operational terms (one continuous consistent commensurable system of falsifiable measurement) Science: testimony in empirical terms (observation of demonstrated evidence) expressed in a commensurable terms (operational). Ontology: realism/naturalism, soft determinism, three faculties: physical, intuitionistic, and mind as motion(no name for it in philosophical terms: experience consists of continuous recursive hierarchical temporal memory – memory of memory continuously constructed by continuous prediction from sequences of sense perception.) the problem is getting people from the observer to perception consisting of change (action) not state. Epistemology: Competition between justification(hypothesis), operation(theory) and empiricism(evidence) at increasing scales (self-reason via positiva-justification, via-negativa and via-positiva-tests, via-negativa market survival) Truthfulness: Due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, deceit, in performative, promissory testimony in complete sentences that are consistent, correspondent, operational, limited, complete, and coherent. Axiology: value: acquisitionism: acquisition of property in toto defined by demonstrated interest (IOW self reported values never reflect demonstrated preference, and demonstrated preference can always be expressed as acquisition of property in toto -a gain yielding a fully commensurable system of measurement), Ethics: Reciprocity – via negativa, all ethnical and moral questions are decidable by tests of fully accounted reciprocity. In other words: I’m describing economics. Which, as others have stated before me, appears to function as the union of the disciplines. Philosophy: Do we think philosophy produces Truth, Meaning, or Choice? As far as I can tell Law, Economics, Science, Mathematics, and the human logical facility (differences in constant relations) produce testimony. As far as I can tell The Grammars (which you don’t know yet) produce the most parsimonious paradigm. Philosophy considers ideals, rarely if ever costs, means of production(models), possibilities(consequences and externalities). So what is the remaining function of philosophy? Reorganization of preferences and means of achieving them given the truth we have identified with “science in toto”: (law, economics, science, math, logical facility). In other words, discovery of truth (science) selection of preference (philosophy), sedation or abandonment (theology). Which makes sense to me since Math(measurement), Science(matter) and Economics (people) produce evidence, law produces testimony and decidability independent of preference, and philosophy produces preference, and as far as I can tell theology allows people to escape the work of philosophy, law, and science – leading to graceful failure as our knowledge and ability decreases from science to norm or law, to philosophy, to theology.

  • Colonialism wasn’t so good. It was just better than every alternative.

    Feb 20, 2020, 8:18 PM Who discovered rule of law by the natural right of reciprocity Who discovered the republic democracy and rule of law Who discovered reason, logic, natural philosophy and science Who discovered natural rights philosophy Who discovered the common law and napoleonic code? Who discovered the Peace of Westphalia domesticating war? Who discovered the Geneva conventions? Who discovered the international charter of human rights? Who discovered science technology medicine and dragged humanity kicking and screaming out of ignorance superstition, hard labor, poverty, starvation, disease, suffering, and early death? Yeah. I know. White people. Yeah, colonialism wasn’t so good.Yeah, it was just better than everyone else’s alternative..