(From Original Post: https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10156430444672264) Lets get posturing out of the way first: I can judge from your argument and sentence structure I have somewhere in the vicinity of 15-30 IQ points on you (at a minimum), from your activity stream, far greater agency, have built multiple technology companies of scale, and am in the process of making a more than marginal contribution to human thought. That’s said, if we’re both done with appeals to achievement, let’s go through what non-argument you’re making and see if there is anything to it or not. Now onto discussion. 1. Original criticism makes two accusations: (a) pseudoscience, and (b) poor or lazy writing. The second (c) mentions something about scientific laws. As for (b), I don’t ‘dumb down’ my sentences in the postwar model. I’m perfectly happy with Jefferson, Lincoln, and Seneca’s prose. Writing for publication is different from sketching for followers. Dumbing it down is work I avoid. In fact, the higher on the Flesch Kincaid scale my writing lands, the more natural it is for me. (You clearly haven’t read Menger or Kant.) Although followers do say that experience with latin grammar is helpful. But yes, the accusation of laziness is correct. Although I consider it economically. It’s not worth my time to invest the extra effort. As for (a) Pseudoscience, well, I think we can address that with a little effort below. As for (c) “scientific laws”, I said “science and law” meaning that both the hard sciences and law require operational prose. This is logical because in large part, western civilization has always relied upon tort (empirical law) into prehistory, and our discourse, debate, law, reason, and science, all developed out of that prior influence. However, to put a sharper point on it. In the sequence: free association > hypothesis > theory > law > convention, each interstitial consists of a method of falsification. And whether a law consists of a mathematical expression of constant relations in deterministic (physical) or a verbal expression of constant relations in semi-deterministic (behavioral), is merely dependent upon the determinism of the discipline. Most economic laws can only be expressed symbolically because the categories change. Most physical laws can, in addition, be expressed mathematically for the simple reason that the categories do not change. “The universe can’t choose to outwit itself. Humans choose to outwit the universe and capture the difference in calories.” 2. Regarding: —“Also, no matter what language scientists write in, the rules of grammar of that language apply, as do the majority of the terms used therein.”— This statement depends on whether you use the definition of grammar of (a) the 19th and early 20th century (normatively) that was developed for mass education, or (b) the definition of grammar of the enlightenment prior to the revolutionary wars, and definition of grammar of the post-Turing (postwar) period (Operationally) (Chomsky). I use the latter: Universal Grammar > Generative Grammar > Rules of continuous, recursive disambiguation. Secondly, once one defines grammar “operationally” not “normatively”, as Continuous Recursive Disambiguation, one is forced to reorganize Semantics(dimensions of reference) as limited by grammar (rules of continuous disambiguation). Thirdly, once we do so, we discover that we have produced many, many ‘grammars’ (rules of continuous disambiguation, each limiting or expanding semantic dimensions), including Mathematical (positional), Logical (dimensional), Operational (actions), Procedural(programming), Contracts(property), Testimony(observability), Ordinary Language, Narrative, fictional, and the Fictionalisms. Fourth; once we account for the influence that the work of Popper Kuhn thru Kripke, and the work of Brouwer(physics), Bridgman(Math), Mises (economics), and the Operational, Operationalist, Intuitionistic, movements have had on the sciences, we see that the current language of at least the physical sciences is limited to Operational Grammar (and semantics). And that this difference in grammars separates the sciences (hard) from the pseudosciences (soft): psychology, sociology, literature, pseudo-history, theology, philosophy. Fifth, Operational grammar contains the most observable (empirical), least inflationary and conflationary (most deflationary) and most correspondent description (Testimony) that is possible – and therefore the most parsimonious in information EVEN IF FAR MORE PEDANTIC IN PROSE. Although we can, at some point, reduce SOME phenomenon to mathematical descriptions (constant relations) as long as the relations (categories, relations and values) are constant (physical world). Even if we cannot always do so because the relations are inconstant (economics, sentience). Although we have discovered that all economic phenomenon produce some set of symmetries (lie groups etc) which show that even in economics the hierarchy of the physical word (subatomic, atomic, chemical, biochemical, biological, ecological) also applies to a lesser degree to the discretionary (less deterministic) phenomenon that includes human memory, forecasting, and choice. CLOSING As far as I know I have no peers in these matters. As far as I know you have just stumbled onto one of my sketches, made for my followers, and either presumed you understood, or counter-signaled against prose you couldn’t understand. I don’t know. I just know it is in the nature of men to police the commons and you think that is what you are doing. Well done. But with this ‘crime’ brought before the judge so to speak, you merely err in your accusation. -Cheers
Source: Original Site Post
-
Answering a Presumptuous Critic
(From Original Post: https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10156430444672264) Lets get posturing out of the way first: I can judge from your argument and sentence structure I have somewhere in the vicinity of 15-30 IQ points on you (at a minimum), from your activity stream, far greater agency, have built multiple technology companies of scale, and am in the process of making a more than marginal contribution to human thought. That’s said, if we’re both done with appeals to achievement, let’s go through what non-argument you’re making and see if there is anything to it or not. Now onto discussion. 1. Original criticism makes two accusations: (a) pseudoscience, and (b) poor or lazy writing. The second (c) mentions something about scientific laws. As for (b), I don’t ‘dumb down’ my sentences in the postwar model. I’m perfectly happy with Jefferson, Lincoln, and Seneca’s prose. Writing for publication is different from sketching for followers. Dumbing it down is work I avoid. In fact, the higher on the Flesch Kincaid scale my writing lands, the more natural it is for me. (You clearly haven’t read Menger or Kant.) Although followers do say that experience with latin grammar is helpful. But yes, the accusation of laziness is correct. Although I consider it economically. It’s not worth my time to invest the extra effort. As for (a) Pseudoscience, well, I think we can address that with a little effort below. As for (c) “scientific laws”, I said “science and law” meaning that both the hard sciences and law require operational prose. This is logical because in large part, western civilization has always relied upon tort (empirical law) into prehistory, and our discourse, debate, law, reason, and science, all developed out of that prior influence. However, to put a sharper point on it. In the sequence: free association > hypothesis > theory > law > convention, each interstitial consists of a method of falsification. And whether a law consists of a mathematical expression of constant relations in deterministic (physical) or a verbal expression of constant relations in semi-deterministic (behavioral), is merely dependent upon the determinism of the discipline. Most economic laws can only be expressed symbolically because the categories change. Most physical laws can, in addition, be expressed mathematically for the simple reason that the categories do not change. “The universe can’t choose to outwit itself. Humans choose to outwit the universe and capture the difference in calories.” 2. Regarding: —“Also, no matter what language scientists write in, the rules of grammar of that language apply, as do the majority of the terms used therein.”— This statement depends on whether you use the definition of grammar of (a) the 19th and early 20th century (normatively) that was developed for mass education, or (b) the definition of grammar of the enlightenment prior to the revolutionary wars, and definition of grammar of the post-Turing (postwar) period (Operationally) (Chomsky). I use the latter: Universal Grammar > Generative Grammar > Rules of continuous, recursive disambiguation. Secondly, once one defines grammar “operationally” not “normatively”, as Continuous Recursive Disambiguation, one is forced to reorganize Semantics(dimensions of reference) as limited by grammar (rules of continuous disambiguation). Thirdly, once we do so, we discover that we have produced many, many ‘grammars’ (rules of continuous disambiguation, each limiting or expanding semantic dimensions), including Mathematical (positional), Logical (dimensional), Operational (actions), Procedural(programming), Contracts(property), Testimony(observability), Ordinary Language, Narrative, fictional, and the Fictionalisms. Fourth; once we account for the influence that the work of Popper Kuhn thru Kripke, and the work of Brouwer(physics), Bridgman(Math), Mises (economics), and the Operational, Operationalist, Intuitionistic, movements have had on the sciences, we see that the current language of at least the physical sciences is limited to Operational Grammar (and semantics). And that this difference in grammars separates the sciences (hard) from the pseudosciences (soft): psychology, sociology, literature, pseudo-history, theology, philosophy. Fifth, Operational grammar contains the most observable (empirical), least inflationary and conflationary (most deflationary) and most correspondent description (Testimony) that is possible – and therefore the most parsimonious in information EVEN IF FAR MORE PEDANTIC IN PROSE. Although we can, at some point, reduce SOME phenomenon to mathematical descriptions (constant relations) as long as the relations (categories, relations and values) are constant (physical world). Even if we cannot always do so because the relations are inconstant (economics, sentience). Although we have discovered that all economic phenomenon produce some set of symmetries (lie groups etc) which show that even in economics the hierarchy of the physical word (subatomic, atomic, chemical, biochemical, biological, ecological) also applies to a lesser degree to the discretionary (less deterministic) phenomenon that includes human memory, forecasting, and choice. CLOSING As far as I know I have no peers in these matters. As far as I know you have just stumbled onto one of my sketches, made for my followers, and either presumed you understood, or counter-signaled against prose you couldn’t understand. I don’t know. I just know it is in the nature of men to police the commons and you think that is what you are doing. Well done. But with this ‘crime’ brought before the judge so to speak, you merely err in your accusation. -Cheers
-
Understanding Deflationary Truth
(Core Concept) (Attn: SG Simmons) || Ordinary Language Grammar > Deflationary Truth > Performative Truth > *Testimonial Truth*. Deflationary Theories of Truth —“That assertions of predicate truth of a statement do not attribute a property called “truth” to such a statement.”— In other words, “I smell the scent of violets” has the same content as “it is true that I smell the scent of violets”. Performative Theory of Truth —“Peter Strawson formulated a performative theory of truth in the 1950s. Like Ramsey, Strawson believed that there was no separate problem of truth apart from determining the semantic contents (or facts of the world) which give the words and sentences of language the meanings that they have. Once the questions of meaning and reference are resolved, there is no further question of truth. Strawson’s view differs from Ramsey’s, however, in that Strawson maintains that there is an important role for the expression “is true” : specifically, it has a performative role similar to “I promise to clean the house”. In asserting that p is true, we not only assert that p but also perform the “speech act” of confirming the truth of a statement in a context. We signal our agreement or approbation of a previously uttered assertion or confirm some commonly held belief or imply that what we are asserting is likely to be accepted by others in the same context.”— Testimonial Truth (Natural Law > Testimonialism) (Doolittle) “I promise [statement], is not false (is true), and I warranty that I have done due diligence in each of the actionable dimensions possible for human falsification.” With Testimonial Truth assuming ‘warranty’, just as promissory truth assumes ‘I promise’, just as deflationary truths assume “is true”. So instead of “I promise [statement] is true, and warranty that I have performed due diligence necessary to make that promise of truth.” On simply states “[statement]”. It means that all speech must be interpreted as Testimony: So when we say “I smell the scent of violets”; …. in testimony that means: “I promise that I smell the scent of violets and that what I say is not false (is true), and I warranty that I have done due diligence in each of the actionable dimensions possible for human falsification.” And what’s not obvious is this: It is very hard to state a falsehood in this form of prose, and not be visibly accountable (to blame) for your words. And conversely, if you cannot state something in this form of prose, the question is why? And the answer can only be ‘fraud’ or ‘free riding’. TESTIMONIALISM Testimonialism provides the criteria (list of methods of due diligence) that enable us to claim we have performed that due diligence and can warranty our words. Next we need to understand Ordinary Language, Conflation, Inflation, and Deflation…. (continued)
-
Understanding Deflationary Truth
(Core Concept) (Attn: SG Simmons) || Ordinary Language Grammar > Deflationary Truth > Performative Truth > *Testimonial Truth*. Deflationary Theories of Truth —“That assertions of predicate truth of a statement do not attribute a property called “truth” to such a statement.”— In other words, “I smell the scent of violets” has the same content as “it is true that I smell the scent of violets”. Performative Theory of Truth —“Peter Strawson formulated a performative theory of truth in the 1950s. Like Ramsey, Strawson believed that there was no separate problem of truth apart from determining the semantic contents (or facts of the world) which give the words and sentences of language the meanings that they have. Once the questions of meaning and reference are resolved, there is no further question of truth. Strawson’s view differs from Ramsey’s, however, in that Strawson maintains that there is an important role for the expression “is true” : specifically, it has a performative role similar to “I promise to clean the house”. In asserting that p is true, we not only assert that p but also perform the “speech act” of confirming the truth of a statement in a context. We signal our agreement or approbation of a previously uttered assertion or confirm some commonly held belief or imply that what we are asserting is likely to be accepted by others in the same context.”— Testimonial Truth (Natural Law > Testimonialism) (Doolittle) “I promise [statement], is not false (is true), and I warranty that I have done due diligence in each of the actionable dimensions possible for human falsification.” With Testimonial Truth assuming ‘warranty’, just as promissory truth assumes ‘I promise’, just as deflationary truths assume “is true”. So instead of “I promise [statement] is true, and warranty that I have performed due diligence necessary to make that promise of truth.” On simply states “[statement]”. It means that all speech must be interpreted as Testimony: So when we say “I smell the scent of violets”; …. in testimony that means: “I promise that I smell the scent of violets and that what I say is not false (is true), and I warranty that I have done due diligence in each of the actionable dimensions possible for human falsification.” And what’s not obvious is this: It is very hard to state a falsehood in this form of prose, and not be visibly accountable (to blame) for your words. And conversely, if you cannot state something in this form of prose, the question is why? And the answer can only be ‘fraud’ or ‘free riding’. TESTIMONIALISM Testimonialism provides the criteria (list of methods of due diligence) that enable us to claim we have performed that due diligence and can warranty our words. Next we need to understand Ordinary Language, Conflation, Inflation, and Deflation…. (continued)
-
The Necessity of Conflict in Monotheism (monopoly)
Eli Harman June 20, 2016 · (repost) I take a dim view of monotheism because it necessitates conflict which isn’t actually necessary. Some conflict will always occur, because there are genuine conflicts of interest. But mere differences, whether in interests, culture, language, race, rituals, traditions, customs, doctrine, dogma, values, preferences, opinions, etc… need not result in conflict. People can coexist and cooperate through exchange, although sometimes necessarily from a distance. However, in monotheism, there is one god, one truth, one law, and they are universal. They are for everyone. If anyone disagrees, they are wrong, and not just wrong but evil, morally tainted. A more reasonable approach would be to accept that the truth is “out there.” We can test ourselves and our beliefs against it. But none of us has access to the whole. And any of us may be mistaken. Moreover, there is always more than one way to skin a cat, different bundles of trade offs or strategies that people may employ to achieve their values, or live in accordance with their preferences. These may be incompatible. But that doesn’t mean they *must* necessarily clash. The monotheistic mentality is exemplified by the Jews. The Talmud is 6200 pages of Byzantine nonsense written by hundreds of different rabbis. But it’s all revealed truth. It derives straight from the one true god, who is infallible, and therefore it’s not supposed to contain a single contradiction. Of course, it does. It must. So that’s why the Jews have evolved pilpul, casuistry, (basically, postmodern deconstruction) in order to square the circle, to reconcile the irreconcilable. They’re such good lawyers because they’ve been lawyering for thousands of years; so long in fact, that they’ve forgotten there is a truth “out there” to compare themselves to (if they ever knew to begin with.) That’s what religious jews do all day, every day, they dispute. Of course, sophistry is infinite in its variety, but because of monotheism, there must be one “correct” bullshit interpretation. They have to determine whose sophistry prevails. Their status heirarchies are based on cleverness in disputation, which is aimed, not at discovering truth, but at causing rivals and adversaries to relent from their wicked and unholy errors, and to accept the one true sophistry as their own. Because status confers reproductive advantages they are now literally bred for totalitarian bullshitting and moralizing. And these tendencies are notably evident, also, in secular jews who have abandoned the religious tradition entirely. Christianity is not as bad, but its cuckery was assured by its universalism. Is anyone surprised that the Catholic Church has become anti-western when the bulk of its flock, its constituency, is in the third world? The only thing surprising about it to me is that it’s taken this long. Nor is it any surprise that the Church spawned protestant spinoffs. Of course people are going to differ in opinion, interpretation, or emphasis. And the bigger your tent gets (in this case, by conquest) the more of those differences there will be to serve as internal fault lines. Eventually, they will become irreconcilable. But since only one can be correct, conflict must result. The only options are to suppress the heretics, to succumb to heresy, or split. There was a great deal of heretic suppressing at first but when the heretics became too numerous and too powerful to be easily suppressed, the splits were accepted (if not exactly endorsed.) But now we’re almost back to polytheism. Because in effect, the various, mutually tolerant, christian sects are worshipping subtly or even radically different gods, though they call them by the same name. Islam is just a parasitic, dysgenic mess that’s only good for belching forth conquering hordes of desperate, expendable, young men, to take over better cultures and begin consuming them in turn. It’s like a metastasizing religious cancer. It is more riven by internal division and conflict than any of them, due to the practice of inbreeding, which results in clanishness and tribalism. But you can see the distinct imprint of their monotheism in the ceaseless sectarian violence they take with them wherever they go. The “dar-al Islam” is not marked by peace even in submission, for everyone must submit in exactly the same way. But naturally, they differ as to what, precisely, that means.
-
The Necessity of Conflict in Monotheism (monopoly)
Eli Harman June 20, 2016 · (repost) I take a dim view of monotheism because it necessitates conflict which isn’t actually necessary. Some conflict will always occur, because there are genuine conflicts of interest. But mere differences, whether in interests, culture, language, race, rituals, traditions, customs, doctrine, dogma, values, preferences, opinions, etc… need not result in conflict. People can coexist and cooperate through exchange, although sometimes necessarily from a distance. However, in monotheism, there is one god, one truth, one law, and they are universal. They are for everyone. If anyone disagrees, they are wrong, and not just wrong but evil, morally tainted. A more reasonable approach would be to accept that the truth is “out there.” We can test ourselves and our beliefs against it. But none of us has access to the whole. And any of us may be mistaken. Moreover, there is always more than one way to skin a cat, different bundles of trade offs or strategies that people may employ to achieve their values, or live in accordance with their preferences. These may be incompatible. But that doesn’t mean they *must* necessarily clash. The monotheistic mentality is exemplified by the Jews. The Talmud is 6200 pages of Byzantine nonsense written by hundreds of different rabbis. But it’s all revealed truth. It derives straight from the one true god, who is infallible, and therefore it’s not supposed to contain a single contradiction. Of course, it does. It must. So that’s why the Jews have evolved pilpul, casuistry, (basically, postmodern deconstruction) in order to square the circle, to reconcile the irreconcilable. They’re such good lawyers because they’ve been lawyering for thousands of years; so long in fact, that they’ve forgotten there is a truth “out there” to compare themselves to (if they ever knew to begin with.) That’s what religious jews do all day, every day, they dispute. Of course, sophistry is infinite in its variety, but because of monotheism, there must be one “correct” bullshit interpretation. They have to determine whose sophistry prevails. Their status heirarchies are based on cleverness in disputation, which is aimed, not at discovering truth, but at causing rivals and adversaries to relent from their wicked and unholy errors, and to accept the one true sophistry as their own. Because status confers reproductive advantages they are now literally bred for totalitarian bullshitting and moralizing. And these tendencies are notably evident, also, in secular jews who have abandoned the religious tradition entirely. Christianity is not as bad, but its cuckery was assured by its universalism. Is anyone surprised that the Catholic Church has become anti-western when the bulk of its flock, its constituency, is in the third world? The only thing surprising about it to me is that it’s taken this long. Nor is it any surprise that the Church spawned protestant spinoffs. Of course people are going to differ in opinion, interpretation, or emphasis. And the bigger your tent gets (in this case, by conquest) the more of those differences there will be to serve as internal fault lines. Eventually, they will become irreconcilable. But since only one can be correct, conflict must result. The only options are to suppress the heretics, to succumb to heresy, or split. There was a great deal of heretic suppressing at first but when the heretics became too numerous and too powerful to be easily suppressed, the splits were accepted (if not exactly endorsed.) But now we’re almost back to polytheism. Because in effect, the various, mutually tolerant, christian sects are worshipping subtly or even radically different gods, though they call them by the same name. Islam is just a parasitic, dysgenic mess that’s only good for belching forth conquering hordes of desperate, expendable, young men, to take over better cultures and begin consuming them in turn. It’s like a metastasizing religious cancer. It is more riven by internal division and conflict than any of them, due to the practice of inbreeding, which results in clanishness and tribalism. But you can see the distinct imprint of their monotheism in the ceaseless sectarian violence they take with them wherever they go. The “dar-al Islam” is not marked by peace even in submission, for everyone must submit in exactly the same way. But naturally, they differ as to what, precisely, that means.
-
For Newbies. (intro Help)
https://propertarianinstitute.com/2018/03/29/propertarianism-core-concepts-by-eli-harman/OK, so, Propertarianism is a name we are sort of stuck with simply because of the degree of awareness. Operationally, it consists of: 1) The explanation of the reason for western rapidity of adaptation and evolution in the ancient and modern worlds. And the conflict of civilizations between the Masculine/True/Eugenic(Aristocratic/European), and Feminine/False/Dysgenic(Theological/Semitic), And how we are currently in the third generation (iteration) of that conflict. 2) Strictly Constructed Natural Law of Reciprocity and Testimony. This is the technical part of the work. And the description of “perfect government” (little different from antiquity). 3) A collections of essays that attempt to reframe literally every question and discipline when expressed truthfully. And a collection of essays answering literally all political social and ethical questions we have yet inventoried. 4) A constitution that is strictly constructed natural law including options for soft, medium, and hard implementations – including restitutions for damages caused by the left. There is more but that’s the major components of the work. If you ‘ask around’ it takes about six months to get your arms around it. And one to two years to use it well depending upon your ability and prior knowledge. So because of the scope and detail of this work I write a lot of ‘sketches’ that you eventually see how fit together into a very tight puzzle. Cheers 1 – Eli’s Introduction for Libertarians https://propertarianinstitute.com/2018/03/29/propertarianism-core-concepts-by-eli-harman/ 2 – Curt’s Basic Concepts https://propertarianinstitute.com/basic-concepts/ 3 – Curt’s Overview (does not include the Grammars) https://propertarianinstitute.com/2016/01/05/an-overview-of-propertarianism-for-serious-newbies/ 4 – Course Outline https://propertarianinstitute.com/2016/01/05/an-overview-of-propertarianism-for-serious-newbies/ -
For Newbies. (intro Help)
https://propertarianinstitute.com/2018/03/29/propertarianism-core-concepts-by-eli-harman/OK, so, Propertarianism is a name we are sort of stuck with simply because of the degree of awareness. Operationally, it consists of: 1) The explanation of the reason for western rapidity of adaptation and evolution in the ancient and modern worlds. And the conflict of civilizations between the Masculine/True/Eugenic(Aristocratic/European), and Feminine/False/Dysgenic(Theological/Semitic), And how we are currently in the third generation (iteration) of that conflict. 2) Strictly Constructed Natural Law of Reciprocity and Testimony. This is the technical part of the work. And the description of “perfect government” (little different from antiquity). 3) A collections of essays that attempt to reframe literally every question and discipline when expressed truthfully. And a collection of essays answering literally all political social and ethical questions we have yet inventoried. 4) A constitution that is strictly constructed natural law including options for soft, medium, and hard implementations – including restitutions for damages caused by the left. There is more but that’s the major components of the work. If you ‘ask around’ it takes about six months to get your arms around it. And one to two years to use it well depending upon your ability and prior knowledge. So because of the scope and detail of this work I write a lot of ‘sketches’ that you eventually see how fit together into a very tight puzzle. Cheers 1 – Eli’s Introduction for Libertarians https://propertarianinstitute.com/2018/03/29/propertarianism-core-concepts-by-eli-harman/ 2 – Curt’s Basic Concepts https://propertarianinstitute.com/basic-concepts/ 3 – Curt’s Overview (does not include the Grammars) https://propertarianinstitute.com/2016/01/05/an-overview-of-propertarianism-for-serious-newbies/ 4 – Course Outline https://propertarianinstitute.com/2016/01/05/an-overview-of-propertarianism-for-serious-newbies/ -
The Left creates a Herd.
The Left creates a Herd. The Right creates alliances of Tribes. Via positiva as needed for each Tribe Via negativa is how we cooperate across Tribes. Natural Law has no say on positiva (what do do) Only upon what we must NOT do, to preserve our tribes. Our name is Legions. And we are many. Their name is herd And they are one.
-
The Left creates a Herd.
The Left creates a Herd. The Right creates alliances of Tribes. Via positiva as needed for each Tribe Via negativa is how we cooperate across Tribes. Natural Law has no say on positiva (what do do) Only upon what we must NOT do, to preserve our tribes. Our name is Legions. And we are many. Their name is herd And they are one.