Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • So, as IE’s expand, they use religion to manage conquered people, and law to man

    So, as IE’s expand, they use religion to manage conquered people, and law to manage themselves. (That’s the nut of it right there.)

  • Why I Write Natural Law (Science) Not Philosophy (Choice).

    Human nature invests minimum to gain maximum and is quite lazy when it comes to unnecessary precision, but then attempts to use imprecise terms (and ideas) to solve precise problems. Human experties in sciences (deflationary grammars) serves to deflate any given level of abstraction. I have a chart you need to see. I understand the unification of the sciences and I think plenty of other people do – but it’s just very different from what we’d expected. —“the inference would be that a corresponding language of specificity would be a part of that.”— Well, exactly. –“However, that is not why we have failed at achieving”— The reason we failed is that there is a market for agency via deception (non-correspondence, inconsistency, and in-coherence), just as much as there is a market for agency via truthfulness(correspondence, consistency, and coherence). Ergo, just as we have eliminated the markets for violence, theft, fraud, free riding, etc, we can eliminate the market for falsehoods: by law. The problem was (and is no longer) a criteria for warranty of due diligence against falsehood of information entered intot he informational commons. In other words, I’m not ‘selling’. I’m not interested in convincing people that crime is crime, only in producing law that states what crime is, and therefore outlaws it. People will then respond accordingly – as they always have done – to incremental suppression of parasitism. And that is the means by which we have produced civilization: the incremental suppression of parasitism through the incremental expansion of the law, by the discovery and cataloging the means by which man engages in parasitism. So I am not really writing philosophy (choice and preference), but law (necessity and truth). Hence my lack of concern for what ‘people think’. People have ‘thought’ that outlawing each form of parasitism was bad in every generation because it forces them into survival in the service of others in the market – and non-survival if they do not.

  • Why I Write Natural Law (Science) Not Philosophy (Choice).

    Human nature invests minimum to gain maximum and is quite lazy when it comes to unnecessary precision, but then attempts to use imprecise terms (and ideas) to solve precise problems. Human experties in sciences (deflationary grammars) serves to deflate any given level of abstraction. I have a chart you need to see. I understand the unification of the sciences and I think plenty of other people do – but it’s just very different from what we’d expected. —“the inference would be that a corresponding language of specificity would be a part of that.”— Well, exactly. –“However, that is not why we have failed at achieving”— The reason we failed is that there is a market for agency via deception (non-correspondence, inconsistency, and in-coherence), just as much as there is a market for agency via truthfulness(correspondence, consistency, and coherence). Ergo, just as we have eliminated the markets for violence, theft, fraud, free riding, etc, we can eliminate the market for falsehoods: by law. The problem was (and is no longer) a criteria for warranty of due diligence against falsehood of information entered intot he informational commons. In other words, I’m not ‘selling’. I’m not interested in convincing people that crime is crime, only in producing law that states what crime is, and therefore outlaws it. People will then respond accordingly – as they always have done – to incremental suppression of parasitism. And that is the means by which we have produced civilization: the incremental suppression of parasitism through the incremental expansion of the law, by the discovery and cataloging the means by which man engages in parasitism. So I am not really writing philosophy (choice and preference), but law (necessity and truth). Hence my lack of concern for what ‘people think’. People have ‘thought’ that outlawing each form of parasitism was bad in every generation because it forces them into survival in the service of others in the market – and non-survival if they do not.

  • by Kage Keller Pardon me for restating in language less exacting. We use Truth t

    by Kage Keller Pardon me for restating in language less exacting. We use Truth to create models that corresponde with reality. We use that model for heuristics. —“definition: a heuristic, is any approach to problem solving, learning, or discovery that employs a practical method not guaranteed to be optimal or perfect, but sufficient for the immediate goals”— We need these models for prediction so that we can make choices, and take actions, to survive. We seek novelty to improve our models. Novelty-seeking saves time and energy – where we use pattern recognition and our predictive power of neurons to identify where others have done the processing for us. When we consider what someone else has said (running it through our pattern recognition and predictive “wiring”, and then integrate it into a new model) we save time/processing power that we can use for other endeavors (survival reinforcement for our genetics). This is an efficient use of social information processing… But, if and only if you know enough about the problem to predict someone else’s processing result has a high probability of being right. But, it is disastrous if you have a very weak model on the subject. Because then you can be INDOCTRINATED – where a biased model can be learned (installed) and then be extraordinarily difficult to overcome with future information (novelty). This is where we rely on experts who have processed answers for us. It is dangerous however to take answers on faith. Without digging into their model and having done some processing on your own, you leave yourself open to have your foundations supplanted by some entities’ agenda. You become a pawn, or sheep, or cuck…etc. e.g. you surrender your agency for a modicum of processing savings. Being well read is an insurance policy against indoctrination (which disenfranchises your agency(freedom to make decisions for survival)) (Curt: well done!)

  • by Kage Keller Pardon me for restating in language less exacting. We use Truth t

    by Kage Keller Pardon me for restating in language less exacting. We use Truth to create models that corresponde with reality. We use that model for heuristics. —“definition: a heuristic, is any approach to problem solving, learning, or discovery that employs a practical method not guaranteed to be optimal or perfect, but sufficient for the immediate goals”— We need these models for prediction so that we can make choices, and take actions, to survive. We seek novelty to improve our models. Novelty-seeking saves time and energy – where we use pattern recognition and our predictive power of neurons to identify where others have done the processing for us. When we consider what someone else has said (running it through our pattern recognition and predictive “wiring”, and then integrate it into a new model) we save time/processing power that we can use for other endeavors (survival reinforcement for our genetics). This is an efficient use of social information processing… But, if and only if you know enough about the problem to predict someone else’s processing result has a high probability of being right. But, it is disastrous if you have a very weak model on the subject. Because then you can be INDOCTRINATED – where a biased model can be learned (installed) and then be extraordinarily difficult to overcome with future information (novelty). This is where we rely on experts who have processed answers for us. It is dangerous however to take answers on faith. Without digging into their model and having done some processing on your own, you leave yourself open to have your foundations supplanted by some entities’ agenda. You become a pawn, or sheep, or cuck…etc. e.g. you surrender your agency for a modicum of processing savings. Being well read is an insurance policy against indoctrination (which disenfranchises your agency(freedom to make decisions for survival)) (Curt: well done!)

  • The History Of Our People

    Indo-European migrations were the migrations of pastoral peoples speaking the Proto-Indo-European language, who departed from the Yamnaya and related cultures in the Pontic–Caspian steppe, starting at c. 4000 BCE. They spread throughout Europe and Asia, forming new cultures with the people they met on their way, including the Corded Ware culture in Northern Europe and the Vedic culture in India. Modern knowledge of these migrations is based on data from (a) linguistics, (b)archaeology, (c) anthropology and (d) genetics. a) Linguistics describes the similarities between various languages, and the linguistic laws at play in the changes in those languages. b/c) Archaeological data, describes the spread of the Proto-Indo-European language and culture in several stages from the Proto-Indo-European Eurasian homeland in the Pontic–Caspian steppe, into Western Europe and Central and South Asia, by migrations, and by language shift through elite-recruitment as described by anthropological research. d) Recent genetic research has a growing contribution to the understanding of the historical relations between various historical cultures. The Indo-European languages and cultures spread in various stages. Early migrations from c. 4200–3000 BCE brought archaic proto-Indo-European into: 1) the lower Danube valley, 2) Anatolia, and the 3) Altai region 4) Pre-Celtic and pre-Italic probably spread into Europe after new migrations into the Danube Valley, 5) While pre-Germanic and pre-Balto-Slavic developed east of the Carpathian mountains, at present-day Ukraine, moving north and spreading with the Corded Ware culture in Middle Europe (third millennium BCE). 6) The Indo-Iranian language and culture emerged at the Sintashta culture (c. 2100–1800 BCE), at the eastern border of the Yamna horizon and the Corded ware culture,growing into the Andronovo culture (c. 1800–800 BCE). 7) Indo-Aryans moved into the Bactria–Margiana Archaeological Complex (c. 2300–1700 BCE) and spread to the Levant (Mitanni), northern India (Vedic people, c. 1500 BCE), and China (Wusun). 8) The Iranian languages spread throughout the steppes with the Scyths and into Iran with the Medes, Parthians and Persians from ca. 800 BCE. (Straight from Wikipedia. This isn’t controversial. It’s just how it is.)

  • The History Of Our People

    Indo-European migrations were the migrations of pastoral peoples speaking the Proto-Indo-European language, who departed from the Yamnaya and related cultures in the Pontic–Caspian steppe, starting at c. 4000 BCE. They spread throughout Europe and Asia, forming new cultures with the people they met on their way, including the Corded Ware culture in Northern Europe and the Vedic culture in India. Modern knowledge of these migrations is based on data from (a) linguistics, (b)archaeology, (c) anthropology and (d) genetics. a) Linguistics describes the similarities between various languages, and the linguistic laws at play in the changes in those languages. b/c) Archaeological data, describes the spread of the Proto-Indo-European language and culture in several stages from the Proto-Indo-European Eurasian homeland in the Pontic–Caspian steppe, into Western Europe and Central and South Asia, by migrations, and by language shift through elite-recruitment as described by anthropological research. d) Recent genetic research has a growing contribution to the understanding of the historical relations between various historical cultures. The Indo-European languages and cultures spread in various stages. Early migrations from c. 4200–3000 BCE brought archaic proto-Indo-European into: 1) the lower Danube valley, 2) Anatolia, and the 3) Altai region 4) Pre-Celtic and pre-Italic probably spread into Europe after new migrations into the Danube Valley, 5) While pre-Germanic and pre-Balto-Slavic developed east of the Carpathian mountains, at present-day Ukraine, moving north and spreading with the Corded Ware culture in Middle Europe (third millennium BCE). 6) The Indo-Iranian language and culture emerged at the Sintashta culture (c. 2100–1800 BCE), at the eastern border of the Yamna horizon and the Corded ware culture,growing into the Andronovo culture (c. 1800–800 BCE). 7) Indo-Aryans moved into the Bactria–Margiana Archaeological Complex (c. 2300–1700 BCE) and spread to the Levant (Mitanni), northern India (Vedic people, c. 1500 BCE), and China (Wusun). 8) The Iranian languages spread throughout the steppes with the Scyths and into Iran with the Medes, Parthians and Persians from ca. 800 BCE. (Straight from Wikipedia. This isn’t controversial. It’s just how it is.)

  • If you yourself cannot constrain yourself to operational language (strictly cons

    If you yourself cannot constrain yourself to operational language (strictly constructed grammar) in ordinary language, yet you treat formal grammars (mathematics: constant positional relations), and logic (constant semantic relations), and physics (constant physical state relations) as they should be; formal grammars – then you are holding a double standard. Why is it that you cannot write in, speak in, think in equally logical and scientific prose? Yet it is that inability to speak in equally scientific prose that leads you to the conclusions you hold. Thereby attributing to your own state authority that cannot exist because it lacks the rigor of those grammar and semantics that you refer to with authority? Why would intellectual history be complicated? Why is the physical world (subatomic, atomic, chemical, biological, sentient) not ‘simple’ in, that like higher mathematics, forms lie groups (externalities) that limit the permutations of the underlying grammar (operations) – and then this cycle repeats itself, producing in the physical world, what we call sciences at every hierarchy of chose limits? All I have really done is state that: (a) via negativa is all that we can search for. What remains (as in markets) is a truth candidate. And we are actually quite good at falsification (criticism). (b) that the logics, sciences, and ethics serve only as via-negativa deflationary grammars (processes of continuous disambiguation) that remove ambiguity and error. (c) that the operational revolution failed in the 20th century due to lagging justificationism, and that the hard sciences adopted it, and that the law has always adhered to it, and that operational grammar serves as a deflationary grammar that falsifies (disambiguates) fictionalisms (fiction, pseudoscience, pseudo rationalism, supernaturalism. (d) that humans feel, reason, and act to acquire predictable categories, and that these categories are constant across all of us (given biases in the genders) – and without htat constancy we would not be able to empathize, and without being able to empathize, we would not be able to cooperate. I had to adapt or create a lot of terminology from all fields in order to produce an operational semantics (vocabulary) without resorting to continental ‘word fabrication’. And as such, it’s a bit unnatural and difficult to learn. But it is far better than colloquial or disciplinary vocabularies and their pretenses of knowledge – particularly their pretense of knowledge of existence.

  • If you yourself cannot constrain yourself to operational language (strictly cons

    If you yourself cannot constrain yourself to operational language (strictly constructed grammar) in ordinary language, yet you treat formal grammars (mathematics: constant positional relations), and logic (constant semantic relations), and physics (constant physical state relations) as they should be; formal grammars – then you are holding a double standard. Why is it that you cannot write in, speak in, think in equally logical and scientific prose? Yet it is that inability to speak in equally scientific prose that leads you to the conclusions you hold. Thereby attributing to your own state authority that cannot exist because it lacks the rigor of those grammar and semantics that you refer to with authority? Why would intellectual history be complicated? Why is the physical world (subatomic, atomic, chemical, biological, sentient) not ‘simple’ in, that like higher mathematics, forms lie groups (externalities) that limit the permutations of the underlying grammar (operations) – and then this cycle repeats itself, producing in the physical world, what we call sciences at every hierarchy of chose limits? All I have really done is state that: (a) via negativa is all that we can search for. What remains (as in markets) is a truth candidate. And we are actually quite good at falsification (criticism). (b) that the logics, sciences, and ethics serve only as via-negativa deflationary grammars (processes of continuous disambiguation) that remove ambiguity and error. (c) that the operational revolution failed in the 20th century due to lagging justificationism, and that the hard sciences adopted it, and that the law has always adhered to it, and that operational grammar serves as a deflationary grammar that falsifies (disambiguates) fictionalisms (fiction, pseudoscience, pseudo rationalism, supernaturalism. (d) that humans feel, reason, and act to acquire predictable categories, and that these categories are constant across all of us (given biases in the genders) – and without htat constancy we would not be able to empathize, and without being able to empathize, we would not be able to cooperate. I had to adapt or create a lot of terminology from all fields in order to produce an operational semantics (vocabulary) without resorting to continental ‘word fabrication’. And as such, it’s a bit unnatural and difficult to learn. But it is far better than colloquial or disciplinary vocabularies and their pretenses of knowledge – particularly their pretense of knowledge of existence.

  • “Truth is temporal, not absolute”— Try to say that without appealing to platon

    —“Truth is temporal, not absolute”— Try to say that without appealing to platonism. You wont be able to. Why? If you can’t state the means of a things existence without the verb to be, then you do not know of what you speak. Reliance on the verb to-be (is, are, was, were etc) violates strict grammatical construction in our high precision, low context language. When you say that rules of logic include a litany of fallacies, again, you refer to violations in the compatibility of semantic content and the deflationary grammars (logics) with which we test commensurability of states (statements). In other words: word games. Let me state it better for you (as I did in the opening sentence) The information (semantics: consisting of networks of constant relations) we rely upon, must of necessity include symbols (referrers, terms, words), that serve as categories (general rules of arbitrary precision), that as such categorical aggregates, exclude (disambiguate) our experience of the universe. Ergo: our knowledge remains incomplete. And our language remains imprecise – including ignorance, error bias, and deceit. So in any attempt at testing one’s testimony, we must test the constant relations in each perceivable dimension of reality, and across all dimensions of perceivable reality. And to do so we require multiple grammars (rules of continuous disambiguation). So when you speak of logic(words) and science(actions) and sympathetic tests of rationality (rewards), you speak of the three (and only three) categories of grammatical tests we can employ in order to speak without ignorance error, bias, and deceit: truthfully. We speak (testify) truthfully or we do not. WORDS(LOGIC) 1.1- Categorical: We may testify to tautology and in that case must speak THE truth. We have no alternative. 1.2 – Logical: We may testify to internal consistency within a given grammar. As such we speak truthfully if and only if argument (formula, proof) is (exists as) internally consistent (consisting of constant relations between states). ACTIONS(SCIENCE) 2.1 – Empirical: We may testify to external correspondence if and only if we find external correspondence, sufficiency and parsimony. 2.2 – Operational: we may testify to the existential possibility of sequence of operations only if we can describe changes in state of constant relations due to a sequence of operations. RATIONAL (INCENTIVES) 3.1- Rational: We may testify to the rationality of choice if and only if we sympathetically test the incentives under sufficiency and parsimony. 3.2 – Moral: we may testify to the morality (Crime, ethics, morality) of any action or its consequences by tests of the productive, fully informed, voluntary, (and warrantied) transfer of that which individuals have acted to obtain an interest. We cannot know the Truth (the most parsimonious speech possible) We can know Truthfulness (survival of due diligence in the dimensions of perceivable reality. And we do that by the production of grammars that force us to continuously disambiguate our categories of perception into those categories that disambiguous describe reality. Slowly we get there….