Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • “Curt: Is Your Language Pseudo-Scientific?”

    October 30th, 2018 11:25 AM “CURT: IS YOUR LANGUAGE PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC?” (no, but it’s a very good question that deserves an answer)

    —-“I enjoy your humanist stance Curt Doolittle and with most of your ideas I find myself in concordance. My only caveat with your performance is this psuedo-scientific language – almost every other word is some phrase or term of references, especially from the realm of psychology. “— Christian Kalafut

    Christian, Excellent (not unique, but rare) and worthy criticism. Well done. This (vocabulary) is always a problem when trying to provide the only non-nonsensical model of philosophy, which is to reorganize properties, categories, relations, and values in response to advances in knowledge. Every theorist (‘Reformer’ is my prefer term) who attempts to increase the coherence between science and vernacular, across the fields is faced with the challenge of new terms (neologisms), redefining terms, and preserving terms, and doing so sufficiently that he’s free of criticism. To unite all the fields I had to create a common language, and so I appropriated the terms from each that were the ‘least wrong’ and created definitions in series to deflate them. I rely on one spectrum from cognitive science (psychosis <-> autism) by Baron Cohen, and I map demonstrated interests (that which we demonstrate we treat as property by defending), -> to moral bias (Hadit), -> to stages of the prey drive, -> to reward systems, -> to personality traits, -> to gender differences in brain structure resulting in that spectrum. This changes the content (model) of the behavioral vocabulary in ‘psychology’ from projection(imagination via sympathy and conformity) to demonstration (observation: science, and a division of cognitive labor). Thereby reforming psychology from projection to demonstration to physical construction and operation (neural economy) This cognitive division of labor is what I use as the basis of reforming ‘sociology’ under what I call Compatibilism(market) rather than Equality(monopoly) – and the competition between the classes, which serves as a further extension of perception and cognition to the group, wherein the group performs ‘calculation’ of ‘the good (the interest of the polity)’ by continuous tests of voluntary cooperation (reciprocity) – thereby EXPANDING the neural economy from the individual to the group, tribe, nation, civilization, mankind. And to ameliorate this competition between individuals and groups at all scales i use international law (demonstrated means of voluntary cooperation) under reciprocity as the ‘equals sign’ of human action. This results in ‘Natural Law’ as the means of assisting in calculation (cooperation at scale). And it changes from the via positiva of conformity and suppression of individual preference to preserve costly cooperation (antiquity) to the via negativa of conflict suppression and increase in individual preference to take advantage of cheap cooperation (modernity). This changes the discipline we call sociology to observation of agents with partial information thereby uniting psychology, sociology, economics, politics, and group evolutionary strategy – providing a single language and model of all human behavior from the neurological to the international. As far as I know, further increases in the precision of this model will have no impact on decidability provided by it just as newtonian physics is sufficient for all human scale decidability despite increases in precision provided by einstein physics at prior and post human scale. And this is sufficient because humans can only act at human scale, regardless of their perceptions. So, while it is takes a HUGE vocabulary reformation (models of properties, categories, relations, and values) to change from the projections to demonstrations, and from monopoly to markets of behavior, and from static consensus to evolutionary calculation – thereby altering our ENTIRE body of knowledge to reflect the model of ECONOMICS(darwin/markets/equilibrium) that is true, rather than MATHEMATICS (christian/monopolies/equalities) that is false. So yes, as always, in every era (rational(Greek), empirical(early british), scientific(Darwin – european), technological(Turing-Chomsky-anglo american), and now ‘economic-neurological’ (me)), we require a reformation of our network of ideas, and yes it is a costly reformation, because it requires a lot of re-learning. I don’t claim to be a great communicator. I just claim to be correct. 　

    —“My only complaint aside, you’re very interesting and I would love to chat with you!”—

    Any time. 　

    —“Final ?: Have you read Barzun?”—

    I don’t’ find essayists interesting, because i am painfully empirical, and while I can absorb information endlessly I get very ‘tired’ with sentimental prose including value judgements loading and framing. So while I know of some of his ideas, I don’t find them helpful at my level of inquiry (free association, reason, calculation, and computation). In general I just read science and history and unfortunately not only have I lost the ability to suspend disbelief in fiction, I have lost the ability to suspend judgement in essay form, and in both cases, I find it tedious and painful (like listening to gossip.) That isn’t a good thing but it’s a consequence of doing my work for so many years. So that’s why I tell people, I do science, write law, using the rhetorical structure of philosophy and do so to end deceit by pseudoscience (sophism of the technical), philosophy(sophism of the rational) and theology (sophism of the mythological), Cheers.

  • Idiot Report

    October 30th, 2018 9:42 AM TUESDAY MORNING IDIOT REPORT

    —“When you put it in all caps.. .it is much more convincing.”—Brandon Zicha

    Don’t be an ass. The Formatting of Posts https://propertarianinstitute.com/…/23/the-formatting-of-posts/ (Link To “Formatting Posts”:how I format posts for readability)

    —“How could anyone think this was a cult?”–Brandon Zicha

    [I] dunno how formatting posts in lieu of font size, bold, and italic has anything to do with a cult rather than increasing readability. How could anyone be stupid enough to make that accusation? How could anyone be stupid enough refer to formatting over content? How could anyone be stupid enough to come to my page and demonstrate he’s that overwhelmingly stupid?

  • Propertarianism: Our Definition of ‘Grammar’

    October 30th, 2018 11:12 AM PROPERTARIANISM: OUR DEFINITION OF ‘GRAMMAR’ (very important)

    –“Curt, How do you use grammar differently from the norm?”– A Friend.

    CURRENT: – Chomsky’s Grammar Facility (biological) of “Recursive Disambiguation” …. – Languages …. …. – Vocabulary …. …. …. – Semantics …. …. – Grammar …. …. …. – Phonology, Morphology, Syntax … This is the traditional undrestanding of grammar, even though the original term referred to a book containing the rules of the given language. PROPERTARIANISM “The Grammars” as I use them: – Chomsky’s Grammar Facility (biological) of “CONTINUOUS Recursive Disambiguation”. …. – The DIMENSIONAL Grammars (spectrum of dimensions allowed) …. …. – Languages …. …. …. – Vocabulary LIMITED by dimensional grammar. …. …. …. …. – Paradigm (network of constant relations) …. …. …. …. …. – Semantics LIMITED by dimensional grammar …. …. …. – TRANSACTIONAL Grammar …. …. …. …. – Phonology, Morphology, Syntax … etc. WHERE The DIMENSIONAL GRAMMARS Consist of no less than: – identity (property), logic (consistency) – arithmetic and accounting – mathematics, geometry, calculus, statistics – algorithm, computation, transaction, sentience, consciousness, reason, calculation – physics , chemistry, biology-ecology – contract, testimony, law – psychology, sociology, politics, economics – ordinary language (conversation) – narration, – story telling (plot) – myth, parable, (lesson) – fictionalisms (ideal-mental, magical-physical, supernatural-emotional) – Deceits (loading, framing, obscurantism … etc.) AND WHERE Each ‘grammar’ consist of the means of testing internal consistency (decidability) in the process of speech (continuous recursive disambiguation) while producing transactions (descriptions of changes in state). Cheers Curt Doolittle

  • Curt, What is your taste in music?

    October 30th, 2018 9:05 AM

    —“Curt, What is your taste in music?”—

    Not sure why it matters, but prog-indi-alt-rock-grunge-metal. https://www.facebook.com/notes/curt-doolittle/wiki-alt-rock-and-metal-quick-references/10151991065721103/ (“Note: music is an unimportant part of my life except when I’m driving. I don’t listen to music unless I’m relaxing, and that’s a very infrequent thing. Work <-> Eat <-> Sleep is pretty much what I do. And if it is possible to assimilate information then I do so, rather than ‘relax’.)

  • Everything is simple

    October 30th, 2018 10:48 AM “JUSTIFY VS RATIONALIZE” (vocabulary) [W]e justify by rational (internally consistent) means using reason (our ability to compare and decide) due to our logical (biological) facility, which we try to study in that discipline we call ‘logic’, which is nothing more than the grammar of constant relations between terms (references). The thing is that ‘rational’ is a heavily conflated term. So for clarity I avoid rationalize (which is value neutral) and use justify (which is not). |LOGIC| Logical Facility > Reason(Comparison) > Rationalism (Internal Consistency) > Calculation (Transformation) > Computation (Construction). Everything is simple. – Vitruvianism makes metaphysics simple. – The grammars make ‘thinking’ (reason) simple. – Acquisitionism makes psychology simple. – Compatibilism makes sociology simple – Propertarianism makes ethics and law simple. – Group Competitive Strategy makes Government Simple. – All of the above make Aesthetics simple. Everything is simple. A continuous, consistent, grammar of comprehension from the physical to the social to the personal to the mental.

  • Theists and Their Permanent Totalitarianism

    THEISTS AND THEIR PERMANENT TOTALITARIANISM by @Goran Dahl [T]here is one word that theists and occultists in general hate above all other words in the entire world, and that word is “evidence”. When they see this word, they are appalled and provoked. How can someone not believe in their religion or the esoteric? How can someone read their religious texts and not take their word for it? Before you know it, they let out a resounding shriek: “Fedora!”, soon to be followed by “Scientism!” – as if they knew what that meant. They are all predictable; not one of them differs from the other in the least. Theists will never be pleased with you until you subscribe to their ways unconditionally. Nobody in the so-called alt-right is even remotely as dangerous as the theists, because if they could, they would relegate us back to the Middle Ages and beyond.

  • The panic of ‘getting my work done’ is over

    October 30th, 2018 10:23 AM

    (Diary: been trying to figure out why i feel ‘back on my game’ again. And I think it’s that the panic of ‘getting my work done’ is over, and all that’s left is the rest of the editing. I mean, arguments flow now, across the entire spectrum. So maybe I was wrong and that while it only took me six months to work through the grammars, it took the past six months to fully integrate them into my thoughts, and my system of thought. I think the second effect is that the supreme court battle was the last straw and we all see revolution coming in one way or another, and the overton window has shifted HARD. I am also a little less worried about my friends in ukraine. And I think together this has sort of ended my multi-year physical, mental, and emotional burden. I wish I was self aware enough to understand this stuff when going through it but I’m not. In retrospect it’s understandable.)

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    October 30th, 2018 10:19 AM WHY WILL PEOPLE WILL RESIST PROPERTARIANISM? (defense of investment in fraud) [P]ropertarianism: All words, phrases, sentences, paragraphs, and arguments consist of measurements accumulating in transactions. Most importantly, propertarian argument makes visible ALL pretense of knowledge – falsifying any claim made with pretense of knowledge. Reciprocity is a value independent test of decidability. With these two tools we can falsify all fraudulent speech (argument). That’s why people FEAR propertarianism. Propertarianism serves its purpose as a formal logic of social science from metaphysics, through epistemology through psychology, sociology, ethics, law, politics group evolutionary strategy and aesthetics. Propertarianism is ‘frightening’ to the ‘frauds’ precisely because it will restore the market for fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of imposition of costs by externality upon others. This will deny those who use false language to obtain status and therefore organize non-market action and restore all means of theft. Worse (for the frauds), it eliminates their ability to create false self image and false status signaling thereby ending the competition in the signal (status) economy by fraud. This is why people will resist propertarianism. Because it suppresses lies. Unlike abrahamism, marxism, postmodernism and feminism which enable lies – particularly when industrialized lying was made possible by media and the academy, which could then be used by the state to deceive in order to obtain POWER.

  • The Grammar Used Tells You Everything About the Argument Used.

    October 30th, 2018 10:07 AM IT’S NOT COMPLICATED:

    Law       (Science)............= Testimony (Measurements)
Philosophy(Rationalism)........= Excuse    (Justifications)
Theology  (Fictionalism).......= Fiction   (Deception)

    The Grammar Used Tells You Everything About The Argument Used.

  • Again, All Stereotypes Are True

    October 30th, 2018 12:55 PM AGAIN, ALL STEREOTYPES ARE TRUE

    First Impressions of Personality Traits From Body Shapes Ying Hu, Connor J. Parde, Matthew Q. Hill, … First Published October 22, 2018 Research Article https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797618799300 https://t.co/zCti4BNwcT Abstract People infer the personalities of others from their facial appearance. Whether they do so from body shapes is less studied. We explored personality inferences made from body shapes. Participants rated personality traits for male and female bodies generated with a three-dimensional body model. Multivariate spaces created from these ratings indicated that people evaluate bodies on valence and agency in ways that directly contrast positive and negative traits from the Big Five domains. Body-trait stereotypes based on the trait ratings revealed a myriad of diverse body shapes that typify individual traits. Personality-trait profiles were predicted reliably from a subset of the body-shape features used to specify the three-dimensional bodies. Body features related to extraversion and conscientiousness were predicted with the highest consensus, followed by openness traits. This study provides the first comprehensive look at the range, diversity, and reliability of personality inferences that people make from body shapes.