Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • Rights: The Outcome of a Market Exchange

    NICELY STATED —“So, I am thinking of rights not as a naturally-occurring phenomenon that the Rothbardians assert it to be, but the end result of a market exchange between those demanding privileges and those able to supply the defense of those privileges. That is why rights are not absolute (you cannot yell “fire” in a movie theater, cannot use speech to engage in a criminal conspiracy, cannot own certain classes of weapons, etc.) and it is the meeting of the demand for privileges by the citizenry and the supply of defense by the sovereign (with both sides negotiating for their interests and settling on a compromise) that is the actual right. The right is the outcome of this market exchange.”— A Friend

  • It’s Not Easy But When it Clicks, it’s Thrilling

    ITS NOT EASY BUT WHEN IT CLICKS IS THRILLING —“I’m getting it. Things just clicked a few weeks ago and it’s like a torrent of understanding”— A Friend I wish I could get across what it means to me every time I get one of these PM’s. Every time the light goes on for someone, the world is a little less lonely, a little less insane, and holds a little more promise.

  • It’s Not Easy But When it Clicks, it’s Thrilling

    ITS NOT EASY BUT WHEN IT CLICKS IS THRILLING —“I’m getting it. Things just clicked a few weeks ago and it’s like a torrent of understanding”— A Friend I wish I could get across what it means to me every time I get one of these PM’s. Every time the light goes on for someone, the world is a little less lonely, a little less insane, and holds a little more promise.

  • Response: Method To Verbal Attacks

    THE STRATEGY FOR OPPOSING FRAUDS IS A COSTLY INVESTMENT IN THE PRESERVATION OF THE INFORMATIONAL COMMONS. I teach everyone the same strategy: 1) return ridicule or criticism, 2) restate the central argument 3) pose why the deception is necessary if one is correct. 4) repeat until the audience is numb to the rallying shaming and other emotional distractions, and has absorbed the central argument through repetition. Ergo, (in response to ad hom) 1) you’re a poser, and a liar, and a fraud, and can’t address the central argument. 2) The central argument that heterodox views are disproportionately expensive if not impossible to obtain citations in orthodox distribution channels. And that this problem is endemic to all market-driven (customer seeking) platforms. 3) That you have been engaging in distraction and shaming rather than addressing the central question (despite the variety of forms I’ve presented it in) and that you’re demonstrating exactly the infantilized behavior I accuse you of as a means of avoiding the fact that if you DID address that question you would lose face. 4) I am happy to continue to demonstrate how you and other libertarians use marxist and feminist argument (rallying, shaming, and avoidance) as a means of defending your pseudoscientific contra-rational malinvestment in a failed cult. It’s for the good of mankind. See how that works? See? Feminine rallying and shaming is predicated on the cheapness of those arguments, the expense of repeating the central argument, and the intuitionistic emotional reaction of infantilized audiences. However, through repetition we achieve what we cannot achieve through a single reasoned argument. And this is why it is so valuable to play losers like you as suckers. To demonstrate the success of the technique if you are willing to pay the cost of pursuing it – just as we pay high costs of altruistic punishment in all OTHER walks of life. The informational commons must be protected just as all other commons are protected, if we are to crush the criminal left, and the infantile regardless of affiliation.

  • Response: Method To Verbal Attacks

    THE STRATEGY FOR OPPOSING FRAUDS IS A COSTLY INVESTMENT IN THE PRESERVATION OF THE INFORMATIONAL COMMONS. I teach everyone the same strategy: 1) return ridicule or criticism, 2) restate the central argument 3) pose why the deception is necessary if one is correct. 4) repeat until the audience is numb to the rallying shaming and other emotional distractions, and has absorbed the central argument through repetition. Ergo, (in response to ad hom) 1) you’re a poser, and a liar, and a fraud, and can’t address the central argument. 2) The central argument that heterodox views are disproportionately expensive if not impossible to obtain citations in orthodox distribution channels. And that this problem is endemic to all market-driven (customer seeking) platforms. 3) That you have been engaging in distraction and shaming rather than addressing the central question (despite the variety of forms I’ve presented it in) and that you’re demonstrating exactly the infantilized behavior I accuse you of as a means of avoiding the fact that if you DID address that question you would lose face. 4) I am happy to continue to demonstrate how you and other libertarians use marxist and feminist argument (rallying, shaming, and avoidance) as a means of defending your pseudoscientific contra-rational malinvestment in a failed cult. It’s for the good of mankind. See how that works? See? Feminine rallying and shaming is predicated on the cheapness of those arguments, the expense of repeating the central argument, and the intuitionistic emotional reaction of infantilized audiences. However, through repetition we achieve what we cannot achieve through a single reasoned argument. And this is why it is so valuable to play losers like you as suckers. To demonstrate the success of the technique if you are willing to pay the cost of pursuing it – just as we pay high costs of altruistic punishment in all OTHER walks of life. The informational commons must be protected just as all other commons are protected, if we are to crush the criminal left, and the infantile regardless of affiliation.

  • The Dimensions of The Pack Response

    (Psychology) 1 – as to any ‘beginning’ to the universe, the central question is whether time has any meaning at the extremes. We simply do not know the answer. But we know enough to know, that we do not know the answer. Ergo, any argument to ad-infinitum is no more likely than any argument to singularity because we don’t know if there is a difference. Note that I think in terms of persistence.  And so whether there is a beginning to the universe is not as material as whether we persist (survive) the behavior of the universe. 2 – As long as the set of forces that constitute mass-radiation-space-time are constant, there is no reason that the universe or universes do not simply pulse indefinitely, although it is very difficult to say whether they follow in sequence or repeat the same time over and over again. We just don’t know. 3 – there are deep psychological reasons that cause us to seek the psychological safety of the pack in various group activities – and they are chiefly the result of living in large numbers rather than consanguineous bands and tribes. This need exists at the personal subconscious level, the group level(community), and the tribal (regional) level. And religions evolved to assist us in establishing normative expectations of one another on the one hand, and reducing the burden of uncertainty and fear of outsiders and being outside on the other. 4 – As we have seen people seek replacement for talking around the campfire, being read to, watching a play or movie, listening to talking in church, listinening to lectures in university, watching people talk on television. The phenomenon is always the same. 5 – We have seen people able to obtain the feeling of submission of reason to the pack (which is what feels good about religion) by many possible means: disciplined ritual, disciplined though (stoicism’s virtues), disciplined internal conversation (prayer), and disciplined quietude (buddhist meditation). 6 – We have seen people use music and dancing, group runs and walks, organized sports, hunting, festival, holiday, and feast – even parade and war. 7 – Each of these dimensions provides increasing safety of the pack in a world where – since agrarianism – we have existed uncomfortably as individuals. This allows us to ‘rest’ our minds from teh constant effort of reason and our constant battle with uncertainty whenever modernity’s comforting consumptions are insufficient for us to counter alienation that it produces. 8 – The question remains why we must rely on lies (supernatural) rather than myths, legends, and aspirations. There is no reason to rely upon lies, superstitions, and falsehoods – because they are, just like alcohol and drugs, methods of escape and deceit, and self harm. The wonder of being human, of what we have done in our short time, and what we may yet do, is enough for us.

  • The Dimensions of The Pack Response

    (Psychology) 1 – as to any ‘beginning’ to the universe, the central question is whether time has any meaning at the extremes. We simply do not know the answer. But we know enough to know, that we do not know the answer. Ergo, any argument to ad-infinitum is no more likely than any argument to singularity because we don’t know if there is a difference. Note that I think in terms of persistence.  And so whether there is a beginning to the universe is not as material as whether we persist (survive) the behavior of the universe. 2 – As long as the set of forces that constitute mass-radiation-space-time are constant, there is no reason that the universe or universes do not simply pulse indefinitely, although it is very difficult to say whether they follow in sequence or repeat the same time over and over again. We just don’t know. 3 – there are deep psychological reasons that cause us to seek the psychological safety of the pack in various group activities – and they are chiefly the result of living in large numbers rather than consanguineous bands and tribes. This need exists at the personal subconscious level, the group level(community), and the tribal (regional) level. And religions evolved to assist us in establishing normative expectations of one another on the one hand, and reducing the burden of uncertainty and fear of outsiders and being outside on the other. 4 – As we have seen people seek replacement for talking around the campfire, being read to, watching a play or movie, listening to talking in church, listinening to lectures in university, watching people talk on television. The phenomenon is always the same. 5 – We have seen people able to obtain the feeling of submission of reason to the pack (which is what feels good about religion) by many possible means: disciplined ritual, disciplined though (stoicism’s virtues), disciplined internal conversation (prayer), and disciplined quietude (buddhist meditation). 6 – We have seen people use music and dancing, group runs and walks, organized sports, hunting, festival, holiday, and feast – even parade and war. 7 – Each of these dimensions provides increasing safety of the pack in a world where – since agrarianism – we have existed uncomfortably as individuals. This allows us to ‘rest’ our minds from teh constant effort of reason and our constant battle with uncertainty whenever modernity’s comforting consumptions are insufficient for us to counter alienation that it produces. 8 – The question remains why we must rely on lies (supernatural) rather than myths, legends, and aspirations. There is no reason to rely upon lies, superstitions, and falsehoods – because they are, just like alcohol and drugs, methods of escape and deceit, and self harm. The wonder of being human, of what we have done in our short time, and what we may yet do, is enough for us.

  • Peterson is a Only a Third (Meaning via literature). The Rest is Doolittle (Law), and Taleb (Measurement)

    William Butchman (et all), Peterson’s claim is where he’s going wrong:  trying to justify his priors.

    • Yes, we can imagine and experience the world consisting of various combinations of objects, properties, relations, transformations, and values.
    • Yes we can develop our own mental models out of those arrangements (philosophies). Yes we can seek or create an existence in which we comfortably role play with others. Yes we can seek to produce social environments that achieve these ends.
    • Yes we can attempt to accomplish this “private construction of personal reality”, “interpersonal construction of interpersonal reality”, and “Social Construction of social reality”, and even political and institutional construction of political reality.
    • Yes we can construct these sets of objects, properties, relations, transformations, and values out of dream state experiences, supernatural, mythical, literary, extra-rational (pseudorational, pseudoscientific), historical(existential analogical), and various minimalist (scientific) narratives by which we construct explanations of causal relations making use of our objects, properties, relations, transformations (actions), and values.
    • Yes we can perform ideation (envision possibilities for additional desirable experiences) using each of these methods, and navigate through life by these different narratives.
    • Yes, the ‘cost’ of more parsimonious (minimalist, and deflationary) is higher in rational (autistic) terms and provides lower experiential (solipsistic) returns.
    • Yes, the most able can choose ANY of these methods by which to obtain satisfaction, and yes, the less able require increasingly experiential means, and yes the better able are more able to obtain by less experiential means. And yes, while the most expensive, the most demanding, and perhaps the most rewarding is a portfolio : a combination of solipsistic (rich) experiences, along with autistic (parsimonious) understanding of them.
    • And Yes the negative consequences of those narratives consisting of the Dream state, occult, supernatural, mythic, literary, pseudorational, pseudoscientific, socially constructed, can be mitigated by sufficient historical (scientific), narratives (explanations).

    BUT…

    • 1) the material opportunities that arise from them empirically demonstrate that increasing precision, increasing correspondence, therefore increasingly deflationary and minimalist, and therefore more historical narratives, are far higher than all other methods combined.
    • 2) that in matters of conflict people will grant priority to physical safety, opportunity, and comfort; kin safety, opportunity, and comfort; material safety, opportunity and comfort; psychological safety, opportunity, and comfort, normative safety, opportunity and comfort, and institutional safety, opportunity, and comfort in precisely that order. And therefore they demonstrate the superiority of the material in fact as far as they can, then demonstrate status and reputation and self worth, then demonstrate the psychological as far as they can. And all seeming exceptions, under scrutiny will eventually fall to this explanation: costs to them.
    • 3) the function of the darwinian (historical, scientific, minimalist) model is to provide decidability ACROSS those narratives when we need them, and WITHIN those narratives if we choose to need them. In other words, darwinian (scientific) world-views, just like religion in the past, allow us to cooperate at larger scales across those narratives, making use of the range of people and range of experiences that those narratives can provide us with, while at the same time providing decidability across and between people making use of such narratives.

      Group Strategy > Religion > Literature > Philosophy > Science > Law.

      It is in the resolution of our disputes in law and war, and the preservation of non-retaliatory peace post-conflict that we define what is true. It is in the resolution of our disputes in all narrative structures that funnels down, over time, into every greater precision, leaving science (the most parsimonious, deflationary truth) that we ever-drive ourselves toward correspondence with reality no matter how undesirable. Because while we may seek cheap comforts of the mind, we will always fight expensively for material reality that allows us to preserve those fantasies.
    • 4) since those narratives are profoundly easy to use to conduct frauds, deceits, manipulations, defeats, and conquests, we can use the parsimonious, minimalist, scientific, historical to analyze (criticize) propositions within and across these models.

      And since the great challenges of our ancient world (monotheistic deceit), and the great challenges of the present world ( cosmopolitan pseudoscience, and pseudorationalism, and puritan pseudo moralism, and outright lying ) stem from our failure to develop both the methods of providing decidability (truth) across those new more advanced deceits (pseudorationalism, pseudoscience, and propaganda), and the institutional means of preventing such deceits (law), then we are in greater demand for deflationary, minmalist, historical (evidentiary, existential) means of decidability – that which Peterson calls “Darwinian”.

      Ergo as the diversity of narrative, diversity of developmental range, role in group, class, trades, and specialization increases, the demand for decidability across them increases.
    • 5) Darwinian judgement in particular tells us of the long term, unintended consequences of accumulated short term actions. It does not tell us our limitations. It explains why we engage in error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, pseudorationalism, pseudosicence, literary loading, framing, and overloading; propaganda, and outright deceit – for darwinian ends.

    CLOSING We generate opportunities with richly conflated narration, and we generate decidability with minimalist, deflationary truth. That is the difference between the good (desirable) within any context and the true (decidable) across any and all contexts. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Peterson is a Only a Third (Meaning via literature). The Rest is Doolittle (Law), and Taleb (Measurement)

    William Butchman (et all), Peterson’s claim is where he’s going wrong:  trying to justify his priors.

    • Yes, we can imagine and experience the world consisting of various combinations of objects, properties, relations, transformations, and values.
    • Yes we can develop our own mental models out of those arrangements (philosophies). Yes we can seek or create an existence in which we comfortably role play with others. Yes we can seek to produce social environments that achieve these ends.
    • Yes we can attempt to accomplish this “private construction of personal reality”, “interpersonal construction of interpersonal reality”, and “Social Construction of social reality”, and even political and institutional construction of political reality.
    • Yes we can construct these sets of objects, properties, relations, transformations, and values out of dream state experiences, supernatural, mythical, literary, extra-rational (pseudorational, pseudoscientific), historical(existential analogical), and various minimalist (scientific) narratives by which we construct explanations of causal relations making use of our objects, properties, relations, transformations (actions), and values.
    • Yes we can perform ideation (envision possibilities for additional desirable experiences) using each of these methods, and navigate through life by these different narratives.
    • Yes, the ‘cost’ of more parsimonious (minimalist, and deflationary) is higher in rational (autistic) terms and provides lower experiential (solipsistic) returns.
    • Yes, the most able can choose ANY of these methods by which to obtain satisfaction, and yes, the less able require increasingly experiential means, and yes the better able are more able to obtain by less experiential means. And yes, while the most expensive, the most demanding, and perhaps the most rewarding is a portfolio : a combination of solipsistic (rich) experiences, along with autistic (parsimonious) understanding of them.
    • And Yes the negative consequences of those narratives consisting of the Dream state, occult, supernatural, mythic, literary, pseudorational, pseudoscientific, socially constructed, can be mitigated by sufficient historical (scientific), narratives (explanations).

    BUT…

    • 1) the material opportunities that arise from them empirically demonstrate that increasing precision, increasing correspondence, therefore increasingly deflationary and minimalist, and therefore more historical narratives, are far higher than all other methods combined.
    • 2) that in matters of conflict people will grant priority to physical safety, opportunity, and comfort; kin safety, opportunity, and comfort; material safety, opportunity and comfort; psychological safety, opportunity, and comfort, normative safety, opportunity and comfort, and institutional safety, opportunity, and comfort in precisely that order. And therefore they demonstrate the superiority of the material in fact as far as they can, then demonstrate status and reputation and self worth, then demonstrate the psychological as far as they can. And all seeming exceptions, under scrutiny will eventually fall to this explanation: costs to them.
    • 3) the function of the darwinian (historical, scientific, minimalist) model is to provide decidability ACROSS those narratives when we need them, and WITHIN those narratives if we choose to need them. In other words, darwinian (scientific) world-views, just like religion in the past, allow us to cooperate at larger scales across those narratives, making use of the range of people and range of experiences that those narratives can provide us with, while at the same time providing decidability across and between people making use of such narratives.

      Group Strategy > Religion > Literature > Philosophy > Science > Law.

      It is in the resolution of our disputes in law and war, and the preservation of non-retaliatory peace post-conflict that we define what is true. It is in the resolution of our disputes in all narrative structures that funnels down, over time, into every greater precision, leaving science (the most parsimonious, deflationary truth) that we ever-drive ourselves toward correspondence with reality no matter how undesirable. Because while we may seek cheap comforts of the mind, we will always fight expensively for material reality that allows us to preserve those fantasies.
    • 4) since those narratives are profoundly easy to use to conduct frauds, deceits, manipulations, defeats, and conquests, we can use the parsimonious, minimalist, scientific, historical to analyze (criticize) propositions within and across these models.

      And since the great challenges of our ancient world (monotheistic deceit), and the great challenges of the present world ( cosmopolitan pseudoscience, and pseudorationalism, and puritan pseudo moralism, and outright lying ) stem from our failure to develop both the methods of providing decidability (truth) across those new more advanced deceits (pseudorationalism, pseudoscience, and propaganda), and the institutional means of preventing such deceits (law), then we are in greater demand for deflationary, minmalist, historical (evidentiary, existential) means of decidability – that which Peterson calls “Darwinian”.

      Ergo as the diversity of narrative, diversity of developmental range, role in group, class, trades, and specialization increases, the demand for decidability across them increases.
    • 5) Darwinian judgement in particular tells us of the long term, unintended consequences of accumulated short term actions. It does not tell us our limitations. It explains why we engage in error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, pseudorationalism, pseudosicence, literary loading, framing, and overloading; propaganda, and outright deceit – for darwinian ends.

    CLOSING We generate opportunities with richly conflated narration, and we generate decidability with minimalist, deflationary truth. That is the difference between the good (desirable) within any context and the true (decidable) across any and all contexts. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Series: Models of Decidability … And explanation of the importance of Series

    SERIES: MODELS OF DECIDABILITY (very important)(advanced) Michael Andrade teased me the other day for posting so many series, often without resolution. Why? Each series is an attempt at creating a proof. An attempt to create a set, series, sequence, spectrum, that increases the precision of every definition by its membership in that spectrum. I try to include as many terms as I can, and when something doesn’t fit, I add more dimensions. I record each ‘failed proof’, and some of them I’ve tried dozens of times – each time trying to take it to further clarity and precision. Eventually I end up with all terms defined on different spectra, and each spectra represents a causal axis – a universal law of man. It is from the identification of these axis that I test each other axis, and together develop an internally consistent and externally correspondent logical description of the laws that govern men’s impulses, thoughts, and actions. And while definitions are important for clear argument, and definitions in series (linear or otherwise) are the best we can achieve, that is not my end objective. Just as reality consists of dimensions and eventually pure relations, mathematics consists of dimensions and eventually pure relations, our methods of argument consist of dimensions and eventually result in pure relations. Just as mathematics consists of very simple operations, programming consists of very simple operations, chemistry consists of a very simple set of operations, the ‘theory of everything’ must eventually consist of very simple (deterministic) operations, also… in practice, the law of perfect reciprocity must also consist of a simple set of operations (we know that already from experience), and most importantly *argument* must consist of a very simple set of operations (it does), and a limited number of *dimensions* (it does). Moreover, just as languages vary from the primitive and high context (Chinese), to the advanced and low context (English/German), Arguments vary from universal context (human experiences), to high context (normative), to low context(natural law), to minimum-context’ (science, or ‘truthful’). And so just as we have sought the ‘law of chemistry’, and the law of nature (cooperation), we can seek the ‘law of sentience’. The law or argument. The law of communication. And with that law we can create arguments ever closer, and ideas ever closer, to correspondence with reality. And it is from correspondence with reality that we gain knowledge of reality – and from that knowledge, dominion over reality. SERIES: ARGUMENTS (COMMUNICATION) ========================== IMAGINARY (we should do ) Occult Literature (Separatist Theology)(separate)(intuition – justify) Supernatural Literature (Theology)(organize organize by authority)(reason) Moral Literature (Philosophy)(organize by ideal)(rationalism) Literature (Allegory)(envision) DESCRIPTIVE (we have done) History (Analogy)(advise) (note: non-econ history is literature) Economics (Record) (evidence of cooperation)(advise) Law (Record)(evidence of conflict) Natural Law (Logic)(decide) Science (Truth )(learn) JUSTIFICATIONARY (we justify ) Ratio-empirical-operational Ratio-Empirical Rational Reasonable Moral Normative EXPERIENTIAL (we feel) Sentimental Expressive