DO YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF A CLASSICAL LIBERAL? Maybe. In the sense that we can use the increase in proceeds from the agrarian, industrial, petrochemical, technological, information, and biological revolutions to construct commons by exchanges between houses, then yes. In the sense that we should extend the franchise to those who have not demonstrated ability to decide in favor of the commons, then no. DO YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF A LIBERTARIAN? Probably.Although I have come to understand that we use various terms for “Liberty”: Sovereignty for the martial class, Liberty for the middle class, Freedom for the labor class, and “Positive Freedom” (charity) for the underclasses. And that all of us mean something quite different by it. As such “Liberty” is a middle class ambition, and I do not consider myself first a member of the middle class, but of the lower (martial) aristocracy. DO YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF ALT-RIGHT?No. I consider myself New Right. Alt right is a resistance movement not a revolutionary one. Complaints not solutions. I do solutions. DO YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF A WHITE NATIONALIST?No. I take the position that familism, tribalism, nationalism, under natural law will produce the best outcomes for each family, tribe, nation, and race. And as such all can transcend the animal we call man.
Source: Original Site Post
-
What Do You Consider Yourself?
DO YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF A NATIONAL SOCIALIST? No. Although I do feel that despite its terrible economics that it was one of the greatest and most beautiful ambitions ever created by man – until they adopted propaganda, pseudoscience, and outright lying. WHAT DO YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF? I consider myself Sovereign: An advocate for Aristocracy. Or what we might call a “Conservative Libertarian”. Even if that label tells us almost nothing useful. -
Why Are So Many Scientists Bashing Philosophers?
1 – Philosophy has not kept up with developments: in particular, the universe is saying pretty consistently “I am simple”.2 – But it is much, much, more than this. It’s that: …… While undergraduate, graduate, and PhD physics programs improves the general understanding of the body politic, undergraduate, and graduate, and a very substantial part of the phd philosophy programs cause HARM to the general understanding of the body politic, second only to the pseudoscience of psychology, and third only to the pseudoscience of social science. So the issue is the HARM done by teaching philosophy as the literature of justificationary utopias, rather than the incremental knowledge we obtain in testifying (ensuring we are stating truth). As far as I can tell, philosophers have done far more harm than good in the past two hundred years. And before the past two hundred years, the list of philosophers that did good (Smith, Locke, Hume, Jefferson) is quite small, while the list of scientists and mathematicians who have done good (too many to list) quite large. And the list of philosophers who have done terrible harm (Rousseau and the entire french school, Kant and the entire german school, The entire cosmopolitan school: Boaz, Marx/Keynes, Freud, Cantor, Mises, Rand/Rothbard, Adorno in particular) is nearly endless.
3 – Why are philosophers of my generation bashing philosophers as in need of the same Operationalist revolution as has been forced on Physics and Psychology? 3.1 – Does not incorporate costs. 3.2 – Does not preserve 3.3 – Does not incorporate actionability. 3.4 – Meaning (verbalism) not truth (elimination of error) 3.5 – The unknowable communal Pareto ‘Good’, rather than the knowable interpersonal Nash Optimum. 3.6 – False understanding of Truth as Binary, logical, platonic rather than as a sequence of sufficient for given purposes: True Enough For: … – Understanding/Meaning, (Learning) … – Communication of Meaning ( communication, teaching) … – Opportunity Discovery, ( what most of us desire from learning ) … – Actionability, (domain of science, how is this possible) … – Voluntary Contract/Cooperation, (economics and ethics) … – Dispute resolution(decidability) (conflict and law)Curt Doolittle the Propertarian Institute L’viv Ukraine
-
Why Are So Many Scientists Bashing Philosophers?
1 – Philosophy has not kept up with developments: in particular, the universe is saying pretty consistently “I am simple”.2 – But it is much, much, more than this. It’s that: …… While undergraduate, graduate, and PhD physics programs improves the general understanding of the body politic, undergraduate, and graduate, and a very substantial part of the phd philosophy programs cause HARM to the general understanding of the body politic, second only to the pseudoscience of psychology, and third only to the pseudoscience of social science. So the issue is the HARM done by teaching philosophy as the literature of justificationary utopias, rather than the incremental knowledge we obtain in testifying (ensuring we are stating truth). As far as I can tell, philosophers have done far more harm than good in the past two hundred years. And before the past two hundred years, the list of philosophers that did good (Smith, Locke, Hume, Jefferson) is quite small, while the list of scientists and mathematicians who have done good (too many to list) quite large. And the list of philosophers who have done terrible harm (Rousseau and the entire french school, Kant and the entire german school, The entire cosmopolitan school: Boaz, Marx/Keynes, Freud, Cantor, Mises, Rand/Rothbard, Adorno in particular) is nearly endless.
3 – Why are philosophers of my generation bashing philosophers as in need of the same Operationalist revolution as has been forced on Physics and Psychology? 3.1 – Does not incorporate costs. 3.2 – Does not preserve 3.3 – Does not incorporate actionability. 3.4 – Meaning (verbalism) not truth (elimination of error) 3.5 – The unknowable communal Pareto ‘Good’, rather than the knowable interpersonal Nash Optimum. 3.6 – False understanding of Truth as Binary, logical, platonic rather than as a sequence of sufficient for given purposes: True Enough For: … – Understanding/Meaning, (Learning) … – Communication of Meaning ( communication, teaching) … – Opportunity Discovery, ( what most of us desire from learning ) … – Actionability, (domain of science, how is this possible) … – Voluntary Contract/Cooperation, (economics and ethics) … – Dispute resolution(decidability) (conflict and law)Curt Doolittle the Propertarian Institute L’viv Ukraine
-
The Divine, Supernatural, Moral, And Scientific
—“Is the universe open for free actions or divine interventions or other special divine actions? Are there reasons for the impossibility claims?”— We have not yet eliminated the possibility. We certainly cannot seem to construct any test of such things. All tests we run that would require human control of outcomes have failed – spectacularly. We cannot even find one instance. But what if only the unintended can be caused by collective imagination? In other words, if you were a divinity why would you allow access to the resource? You wouldn’t. Ever. So the reason for the claim of impossibility is not because we know it’s impossible, it’s because we want to stop charlatans, magicians, pseudoscientists, and liars from distracting us from that divine action that we can take if we are acting in full subconscious honesty (pure faith). It is becoming increasingly possible to imagine that by some very, very, very subtle method, we can cause a ‘god’ to form out of the information we possess, our memories, our speech, our actions, and even our imaginings. And that this god like all such gods, is not in control of the physical universe, but that it does influence our actions and ambitions in the same sense that a super-intelligent but non-sentient mind would. –“What is a free action? Which definitions of ‘free action’ are useful and adequate? What is a divine intervention? What other kinds of divine action are there?”— Divine intervention can be explained if and only if it is demonstrated by human behavior. Free action is necessary for the simple reason that the information necessary to make a decision in a deterministic universe, isn’t possible for a person to possess, plus given the human propensity to err bias etc, means that all choice involves quite a bit of choice. The constraint on most human action however is resources and people with whom to cooperate, more than our own desire to act. –“Which evidence is there for the existence of free actions (of a certain kind) and of divine interventions? (An evidence-based approach.)”— What we call synchronicity does not seem, in all cases, to be explicable. It may be that some of us are just better at picking up subtle physical markers by accident (subconsciously) but that we cannot do anything when trying (consciously). It may be that those of us exposed to similar information deterministically will pursue similar objectives and take similar actions producing similar intuitions, producing similar imaginary content, and sensing similar extremely subtle information. I am currently stuck on the problems we find in physical science at the very lowest level, and that we seem to be only aware of a subset of the universe that’s open to inspection by our senses. But this is a very small percentage of the energy and mass in the universe. When I combine this with the silence in space, I am troubled that we are just very primitive in our understanding of space-time and transit through it by other than EMR and crude mass. So (a) the reason we push back on mysticism and divinity is to protect against charlatanism not because we cannot eliminate the possibility of either. In other words it is a moral imperative that we do not have another era of ignorance and mysticism. (b) any existent (conscious or not) divinity would prevent us from conducting conscious experiments to take advantage of the resource he made available for us. (c) We don’t know enough to eliminate the possibility of such an information system (god). And it looks like it is possible (despite the simplicity of the universe that we do understand) that there are phenomenon that transcend the limits of the physical world as we know it – at least to the extent of providing us some information. (d) We can’t seem to find a single case despite trying (very hard) of any divine action that is not explicable by other means. (e) We can’t disprove, and it is more likely, that any information system (god) would not evidence itself in the physical world except through our actions, imaginations, or hallucinations. And that we are looking for the wrong kind of evidence (physical) rather than the only kind that would be possible (experiential). Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute
-
The Divine, Supernatural, Moral, And Scientific
—“Is the universe open for free actions or divine interventions or other special divine actions? Are there reasons for the impossibility claims?”— We have not yet eliminated the possibility. We certainly cannot seem to construct any test of such things. All tests we run that would require human control of outcomes have failed – spectacularly. We cannot even find one instance. But what if only the unintended can be caused by collective imagination? In other words, if you were a divinity why would you allow access to the resource? You wouldn’t. Ever. So the reason for the claim of impossibility is not because we know it’s impossible, it’s because we want to stop charlatans, magicians, pseudoscientists, and liars from distracting us from that divine action that we can take if we are acting in full subconscious honesty (pure faith). It is becoming increasingly possible to imagine that by some very, very, very subtle method, we can cause a ‘god’ to form out of the information we possess, our memories, our speech, our actions, and even our imaginings. And that this god like all such gods, is not in control of the physical universe, but that it does influence our actions and ambitions in the same sense that a super-intelligent but non-sentient mind would. –“What is a free action? Which definitions of ‘free action’ are useful and adequate? What is a divine intervention? What other kinds of divine action are there?”— Divine intervention can be explained if and only if it is demonstrated by human behavior. Free action is necessary for the simple reason that the information necessary to make a decision in a deterministic universe, isn’t possible for a person to possess, plus given the human propensity to err bias etc, means that all choice involves quite a bit of choice. The constraint on most human action however is resources and people with whom to cooperate, more than our own desire to act. –“Which evidence is there for the existence of free actions (of a certain kind) and of divine interventions? (An evidence-based approach.)”— What we call synchronicity does not seem, in all cases, to be explicable. It may be that some of us are just better at picking up subtle physical markers by accident (subconsciously) but that we cannot do anything when trying (consciously). It may be that those of us exposed to similar information deterministically will pursue similar objectives and take similar actions producing similar intuitions, producing similar imaginary content, and sensing similar extremely subtle information. I am currently stuck on the problems we find in physical science at the very lowest level, and that we seem to be only aware of a subset of the universe that’s open to inspection by our senses. But this is a very small percentage of the energy and mass in the universe. When I combine this with the silence in space, I am troubled that we are just very primitive in our understanding of space-time and transit through it by other than EMR and crude mass. So (a) the reason we push back on mysticism and divinity is to protect against charlatanism not because we cannot eliminate the possibility of either. In other words it is a moral imperative that we do not have another era of ignorance and mysticism. (b) any existent (conscious or not) divinity would prevent us from conducting conscious experiments to take advantage of the resource he made available for us. (c) We don’t know enough to eliminate the possibility of such an information system (god). And it looks like it is possible (despite the simplicity of the universe that we do understand) that there are phenomenon that transcend the limits of the physical world as we know it – at least to the extent of providing us some information. (d) We can’t seem to find a single case despite trying (very hard) of any divine action that is not explicable by other means. (e) We can’t disprove, and it is more likely, that any information system (god) would not evidence itself in the physical world except through our actions, imaginations, or hallucinations. And that we are looking for the wrong kind of evidence (physical) rather than the only kind that would be possible (experiential). Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute
-
Adding Depth To Taleb’s Insight That Minority Rule Is Superior To Majority.
(Shhh. Its all in the incentives.) Nassim, (edited for clarity) I’ll fortify your thought experiment a bit. To the best of my knowledge the general argument that reflects the evidence is this: 1) The slower the rotation of elites, the more consistent the policies, the least ‘virtue signaling expenditure’, the least waste, and the least fragility. Consistent policy allows long-term low-cost investment in commons. Preserves knowledge in the administrators. 2) The longer term the incentives the more capital will be accumulated in all its forms. So, Monarchies have the best intertemporal incentives, houses of ‘lords’ so to speak the next best, Westminster/German model parliaments the next, and democratically elected representatives in the American model the worst incentives. Germans seem to produce consistent policies, yet can still be removed from office. 3) Minorities face higher consequences if deposed from power than members of a majority, and they are easier to depose, so they have both incentive to rule well (reduce cost of defense), and to maintain rule(preserve their investments). (The HAN, RUSSIANS/Muscovites), and the TEUTONS/Germanics understood this. The Europeans no longer do. They lost this sentiment in the world wars. Aside from Jefferson’s attempt to codify natural law in an extant document and order, America has been a very bad influence on the world since its revolution.) 4) The more thorough the rule of law, the higher the trust, the faster the economic velocity. So, Rule of law (common, judge-discovered, natural law) is more important in producing good policy than the form of government if the aristocracy (martial class) is large enough. If a professional bureaucracy can form prior to the expansion of the franchise, then Continental Law can function as well as Common Law with a smaller aristocracy (martial class). 5) So, most civilizations fail to defeat i) Malthus, ii) Rent Seekers(corruption), iii) Familism(corruption) for any one of these reasons: (a) inability to form a military/martial/nobility class capable of enforcing rule of law and profiting from its enforcement (Nobility). (b) inability to concentrate wealth without ever-expanding corruption (Homogeneity), (c) inability to direct proceeds to the production of commons(universalism), (d) inability to create a class capable of sustained policy development (minority control) So it’s not so much that it’s minority rule, but that it’s CONSISTENT rule, with intertemporal incentives, while still able to ‘throw the bums out’, with rule of law limiting their actions, and suppressing corruption. And minority rule tends to be more consistent. (And monarchies were more tolerant.) Net: incentives of representative governments constantly trying to hold to their positions produce the worst policy because they have the worst of all incentives: urgency and unaccountability. Reversal: If you are in a heterogeneous, tribal, familial, civilization, lacking a militia (universal military), and a large enough middle class to demand and require rule of law, and if you have its opposite (universal theocracy), and if you do not have harsh winters to reduce the size of the underclasses without invoking moral hazard, you will have a very difficult time creating prosperity compared to a homogenous, outbred, militial civilization, with harsh winters, and putative rule of law. Nobility makes an administrative class, makes a middle class makes a working class, makes an over-reproductive underclass, and rents expand by all classes until the civilization is fragile or stagnant and cannot respond to shocks or competitors. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
Nassim Nicholas TalebWHY THE MINORITY RULE DICTATES MORALS IN SOCIETIES, A PROBABILITISTIC ARGUMENT (addition) A probabilistic argument in favor of the minority rule dictating societal values is as follows. Wherever you look across societies and histories, you tend to find the same general moral laws prevailing, with some, but not significant, variations: do not steal (at least not from within the tribe); do not hunt orphans for pleasure; do not gratuitously beat up passers by for training, use instead a boxing bags (unless you are Spartan and even then you can only kill a limited number of helots for training purposes), and similar interdicts. And we can see these rules evolving over time to become more universal, expanding to a broader set, to progressively include slaves, other tribes, other species (animals, economists), etc. And one property of these laws: they are black-and-white, binary, discrete, and allow no shadow. You cannot steal “a little bit” or murder “moderately”. You cannot keep Kosher and eat “just a little bit” of pork on Sunday barbecues. Now it would be vastly more likely that these values emerged from a minority that the majority. Why? Take the following two theses: – Outcomes are paradoxically more stable under the minority rule — the variance of the results is lower and the rule is more likely to be emerge independently across populations. – What emerges from the minority rule is more likely to be be black-and-white. An example. Consider that an evil person wants to poison the collective by putting some product into soda cans. He has two options. The first is cyanide, which obeys a minority rule: a drop of poison (higher than a small threshold) makes the entire liquid poisonous. The second is a “majority”-style poison; it requires more than half the liquid to be poisonous in order to kill. Now look at the inverse problem, a collection of dead people after a dinner party, and you need to investigate the cause. The local Sherlock Holmes would assert that conditional on the outcome that all people drinking the soda having been killed, the evil man opted for the first not the second option. Simply, the majority rule leads to fluctuations around the average, with a high rate of survival. The black-and-white character of these societal laws can be explained with the following. Assume that under a certain regime, when you mix white and dark blue in various combinations, you don’t get variations of light blue, but dark blue. Such a regime is vastly more likely to produce dark blue than another rule that allows more shades of blue. https://medium.com/…/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictators… -
Adding Depth To Taleb’s Insight That Minority Rule Is Superior To Majority.
(Shhh. Its all in the incentives.) Nassim, (edited for clarity) I’ll fortify your thought experiment a bit. To the best of my knowledge the general argument that reflects the evidence is this: 1) The slower the rotation of elites, the more consistent the policies, the least ‘virtue signaling expenditure’, the least waste, and the least fragility. Consistent policy allows long-term low-cost investment in commons. Preserves knowledge in the administrators. 2) The longer term the incentives the more capital will be accumulated in all its forms. So, Monarchies have the best intertemporal incentives, houses of ‘lords’ so to speak the next best, Westminster/German model parliaments the next, and democratically elected representatives in the American model the worst incentives. Germans seem to produce consistent policies, yet can still be removed from office. 3) Minorities face higher consequences if deposed from power than members of a majority, and they are easier to depose, so they have both incentive to rule well (reduce cost of defense), and to maintain rule(preserve their investments). (The HAN, RUSSIANS/Muscovites), and the TEUTONS/Germanics understood this. The Europeans no longer do. They lost this sentiment in the world wars. Aside from Jefferson’s attempt to codify natural law in an extant document and order, America has been a very bad influence on the world since its revolution.) 4) The more thorough the rule of law, the higher the trust, the faster the economic velocity. So, Rule of law (common, judge-discovered, natural law) is more important in producing good policy than the form of government if the aristocracy (martial class) is large enough. If a professional bureaucracy can form prior to the expansion of the franchise, then Continental Law can function as well as Common Law with a smaller aristocracy (martial class). 5) So, most civilizations fail to defeat i) Malthus, ii) Rent Seekers(corruption), iii) Familism(corruption) for any one of these reasons: (a) inability to form a military/martial/nobility class capable of enforcing rule of law and profiting from its enforcement (Nobility). (b) inability to concentrate wealth without ever-expanding corruption (Homogeneity), (c) inability to direct proceeds to the production of commons(universalism), (d) inability to create a class capable of sustained policy development (minority control) So it’s not so much that it’s minority rule, but that it’s CONSISTENT rule, with intertemporal incentives, while still able to ‘throw the bums out’, with rule of law limiting their actions, and suppressing corruption. And minority rule tends to be more consistent. (And monarchies were more tolerant.) Net: incentives of representative governments constantly trying to hold to their positions produce the worst policy because they have the worst of all incentives: urgency and unaccountability. Reversal: If you are in a heterogeneous, tribal, familial, civilization, lacking a militia (universal military), and a large enough middle class to demand and require rule of law, and if you have its opposite (universal theocracy), and if you do not have harsh winters to reduce the size of the underclasses without invoking moral hazard, you will have a very difficult time creating prosperity compared to a homogenous, outbred, militial civilization, with harsh winters, and putative rule of law. Nobility makes an administrative class, makes a middle class makes a working class, makes an over-reproductive underclass, and rents expand by all classes until the civilization is fragile or stagnant and cannot respond to shocks or competitors. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
Nassim Nicholas TalebWHY THE MINORITY RULE DICTATES MORALS IN SOCIETIES, A PROBABILITISTIC ARGUMENT (addition) A probabilistic argument in favor of the minority rule dictating societal values is as follows. Wherever you look across societies and histories, you tend to find the same general moral laws prevailing, with some, but not significant, variations: do not steal (at least not from within the tribe); do not hunt orphans for pleasure; do not gratuitously beat up passers by for training, use instead a boxing bags (unless you are Spartan and even then you can only kill a limited number of helots for training purposes), and similar interdicts. And we can see these rules evolving over time to become more universal, expanding to a broader set, to progressively include slaves, other tribes, other species (animals, economists), etc. And one property of these laws: they are black-and-white, binary, discrete, and allow no shadow. You cannot steal “a little bit” or murder “moderately”. You cannot keep Kosher and eat “just a little bit” of pork on Sunday barbecues. Now it would be vastly more likely that these values emerged from a minority that the majority. Why? Take the following two theses: – Outcomes are paradoxically more stable under the minority rule — the variance of the results is lower and the rule is more likely to be emerge independently across populations. – What emerges from the minority rule is more likely to be be black-and-white. An example. Consider that an evil person wants to poison the collective by putting some product into soda cans. He has two options. The first is cyanide, which obeys a minority rule: a drop of poison (higher than a small threshold) makes the entire liquid poisonous. The second is a “majority”-style poison; it requires more than half the liquid to be poisonous in order to kill. Now look at the inverse problem, a collection of dead people after a dinner party, and you need to investigate the cause. The local Sherlock Holmes would assert that conditional on the outcome that all people drinking the soda having been killed, the evil man opted for the first not the second option. Simply, the majority rule leads to fluctuations around the average, with a high rate of survival. The black-and-white character of these societal laws can be explained with the following. Assume that under a certain regime, when you mix white and dark blue in various combinations, you don’t get variations of light blue, but dark blue. Such a regime is vastly more likely to produce dark blue than another rule that allows more shades of blue. https://medium.com/…/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictators… -
Aristocracy vs Oligarchy is Simple…
Aristocracy Socializes Gains Into the Commons, and Oligarchy Privatizes Gains Out of The Commons. An Aristocracy increases the capital in the commons and an Oligarchy exploits it. That’s the difference. SIMPLE: ARISTOCRACY +COMMONS, OLIGARCHY -COMMONS
-
Aristocracy vs Oligarchy is Simple…
Aristocracy Socializes Gains Into the Commons, and Oligarchy Privatizes Gains Out of The Commons. An Aristocracy increases the capital in the commons and an Oligarchy exploits it. That’s the difference. SIMPLE: ARISTOCRACY +COMMONS, OLIGARCHY -COMMONS
-
There Is Only One ‘Philosophy’ If We Speak The Truth. The Rest Is Ignorance, Error, Bias And Lies
(very important for anyone interested in philosophy)*(How should we teach Philosophy? Let me tell you.)* One can teach philosophy as historical LITERATURE(Errors, Lies and Failures). Or one can teach philosophy as the evolution of TRUTH TELLING (science). If you want to teach the history of TRUTH then you teach western philosophy – at least you teach a small subset of it. (A very small one). If you do teach truth then philosophy is equivalent to a STEM course SEQUENCE:1 – Philosophy (science of truthful speech)2 – Law (social/cooperative science)3 – Economics (organizational science)4 – Mathematics ( science of measurement )5 – Physical Science (physical sciences of the universe)6 – Technology (physical sciences in materials)7 – Engineering, (physical sciences in construction) If you want to teach literature, then teach moral literature. SEQUENCE:1 – Mythology, (Non-Conflationary Analogy)2 – Theology, (Authoritarian/Conflationary Analogy)—3 – Moral Literature, <<—- Almost All ‘Philosophy’4 – The Novel and Short Story, <<— Incl., Fantasy, Sci-Fi, Mystery, Etc.—5 – History, (description)6 – Biography,(description)—7 – Argument (coercion)7 – Essay (opinion) 8 – Poetry and Verse. (expression) WE MAY DIVERSIFY LITERATURE BY CULTURE LIKE DIET, AND FESTIVALS. But truth bears no competition. Polylogism cannot exist. All such attempts are merely ignorance, error, bias and lies. THE WEST EXCEEDED THE REST THREE TIMES. In the Steppe.(horse, wheel, bronze, heroism (and technology)) In the Ancient World (heroism, truth, reason, jury, natural law, commerce, and technology) In the Modern World. (heroism, truth, trust, reason, jury, natural law, commerce, accounting, common law, and technology ) For these simple reasons: Truth not compromise, Analytic(non-conflationary), not conflationary, Competition(sovereignty), not Decision(rule). OTHERS MUST LEARN TRUTH. WE DO NOT NEED TO STUDY ERROR.LIMITS: SPEAKING IN SEQUENCES (SPECTRA) I follow a general rule that if I speak in ideal types (concepts) and I cannot position an argument or idea on a spectrum (define its limits) then I do not know what I am talking about, and will unknowingly engage in conflation and imprecision from which no deduction is possible, since each attempt merely amplifies errors of conflation. Yet this is precisely what men do, because most men do not seek to discover uncomfortable (expensive) truth (requiring adaptation) but to justify a utilitarian falsehood (limit costs of adaptation). PHILOSOPHY = CHOICE/PREFERENCE + DECIDABILITY/NECESSITY Any Philosophical Framework, no matter which argumentative method is used to construct it (myth, parable, rationalism, pseudoscience, law, or science) must supply the following in order to produce a change in state of the human mind: 1 – Metaphysical value judgment as to man’s relation with reality (usually if not always unstated). 2 – A set of Concepts, Properties, and Relations, 3 – Values for those Concepts and Relations, 4 – Decidability from those concepts, properties, relations, and values. And in that metaphysical value judgment, and by the means of arguing in favor of it, do we find the differences between civilizations, religions, and philosophies. METAPHYSICAL ASSUMPTIONS – The world is uncontrollable(or evil) and I must escape from it. (Mysticism/Judaism/Christianity/Islam = ‘Critique/gossip’ or ‘fantasy worlds’ or ‘utopias’) – The world is hostile and I can only control how I respond to it (Buddhism = Disengagement) – The world of man is chaos but we can create harmony, and I must learn to live in harmony with it (Confucianism = Historicism) – The world is vast and I can only control and be responsible for what I have the ability to control and be responsible for. (Stoicism = Natural Law) – The purpose of my existence is to alter the world for the better having existed in it. (Heroism = Technology) ASSUMPTIONS ARE EVOLUTIONARY STRATEGIES We are (genetically, behaviorally, materially) more or less desirable to others in our capacity as children, kin, mates, friends, allies, leaders, rulers. We call this our ‘class’: Genetic, Occupational, Economic, Social. All of which overlap except for the outliers. . STRATEGIES ARE GOOD(LIBERATING) AND BAD(IMPRISONING), NOT MERELY DIFFERENCES IN PREFERENCES So some strategies will lead you into dysgenia, ignorance, decline, poverty and illness (ISLAM). And some strategies will lead you into slow evolution (Confucius), and some strategies will provide you with eugenics and rapid evolution (Western Aristocratic Egalitarianism “Aryanism”, Middle-Class Rule of Law, Working Class Stoicism, Underclass Christianity.) WESTERN PHILOSOPHY (HEROISM, LAW[natural empirical], TECHNOLOGY[science], REFLECTS CLASSES (just as Confucius vs Lao Tzu, just as Brahmins vs the Underclasses) Westerners do not engage in institutional conflation. We separate mythic literature(heroism), religion(sanctity), festival/celebration/sport, education, law, science. And we either produce a subset of each for each class, or we emphasize one or another in each class. In other words, we produce conceptual products for various markets (upper, professional, middle, working, lower, under). And because none has any real power via conflation of argument or institution, this market remains: a competition between philosophies (methods of decidability). WESTERNERS USE DECONFLATED INSTITUTIONS AND ARGUMENTS: SPECIALIZATION NOT UNIFORMITY This ‘deconflated market’ model is profoundly important when comparing the west to other ‘conflationary monopoly’ civilizations and cultures. THIS PROVIDES SPECIALIZATION IN EACH TYPE OF ARGUMENT, INSTITUTION It allows us to specialize in each without sacrificing each out of pragmatic necessity given the diverse abilities of each class (or rather lack of abilities of each class). THE PROBLEM IS THAT WE HAVE NOT (UNTIL NOW) HAD A UNIVERSAL COMMENSURABLE LANGUAGE ACROSS INSTITUTIONS AND ARGUMENT TYPES. While we have had MONEY to make commensurable good and services across all specializations While we have had NATURAL LAW to make conflict commensurable across all specializations. While we have had MATHEMATICS to make everything we measure commensurable across all specializations. While we have had NATURAL SCIENCE to We have NOT had a MORAL LANGUAGE OF COOPERATION across all those specializations. PHILOSOPHY IS LARGELY PRACTICED AS A MIDDLE CLASS AND UPPER MIDDLE-CLASS METHOD OF INFLUENCING THE RULING CLASS (STATUS QUO). Religion is largely practiced as a lower class means of resisting the ruling class (status quo). Religion coerces man by resistance. Credit and Trade are practiced as a means of rule by the economic class within the limits fo the religious and legal classes. Finance, Industry, Entrepreneurship, Calculative, Managerial, administrative specialize in organization of production Law is largely practiced as a means of administrative rule by the ruling class, by employing the professional class, just as war is practiced as a means of territorial rule by the ruling class by employing the working, and underclasses. Law coerces man by force. Science, technology, engineering, craftsmanship, and labor specialize in transformation (coercing the universe rather than coercing man). Women specialize in the organization of reproduction, care, and caretaking. They need no ‘religion’ except to confirm the intuitions that they are born with. Festivals, Philosophy, Soldiery are for men. And Religion, Feasts, and caretaking are for women. Not that we cannot preclude one or the other. But this explains the kind of information system (philosophy) we are attracted to: one that justifies our genetic predispositions. SO PHILOSOPHERS FAILED IN THE 20TH CENTURY 1 – Philosophers tried to make the discipline a SPECIALTY rather than a language of commensurability. (The continued investigation into Truth, since all the other specializations had broken off into sciences,) 2 – Philosophers tried to create a second set of lies, this time with pseudorationalism, and pseudoscience (the cosmopolitans:Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Adorno; Rand/Rothbard; and the Puritans: French, and American literary Postmodernists; And the secular Christians Rawls-and-too-many-others-to-list. ) 3 – Philosophers failed to solve the problem of the social sciences (cooperation) and instead used a multitude of deceptions and obscurantisms in order to justify authoritarianism(non-cooperation). This exposes most philosophers as theologians in secular rhetorical garb. PHILOSOPHERS EITHER ENGAGE IN THE INVESTIGATION OF TRUTH, THE ARTICULATION OF POSSIBILITY, OR THE CREATION OF A FICTION, OR THE CREATION OF DECEIT. Philosophers have a very poor record in history. Despite so many, it is largely those who struggle to discover empiricism and its offspring ‘testimony’ that have contributed to man. The rationalists are almost universally reducible to excuse makers, and those who attempt to create a rational literature with which to replace biblical literature of mysticism. Many people who enjoy philosophy are far closer to recreational readers of science fiction and fantasy with which to escape the effort of truth seeking in reality, than inquisitors into truth from which we may construct solutions. We can discover which of these a person is: recreational literature, seeker of a particular solution, or investigator of truth with very few questions and very little difficulty. Whenever we do not argue in favor of truth we merely deprive Man of the knowledge he needs to invent institutions of cooperation that assist us in cooperating in the real world. We can use the truth to identify possibilities, or we can deny the truth and create possibilities that require lies (religions) incompatible with reality. We can create deceptions with which to destroy truth or obscure it. It is quite easy in retrospect to determine which philosophers have done so. PHILOSOPHERS AS PROFITEERS ON THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION In other words, philosophers sought a market into which to sell their ideas for profit or coercion, not truth, regardless of profit or coercion. ROLE OF PHILOSOPHY? 1) Investigate and Prosecute Falsehoods And Their Advocates 2) Incorporate the findings of the sciences such that discover superior truths to those we use today. 3) Discover new possibilities having incorporated the findings of the sciences. 4) Articulate metaphysical representations, Reorganize Concepts, Properties, and Relations, Re-weight Values, and provide new criteria of Decidability. IS THERE A SPACE FOR LIARS? No. There is a space for parables. But liars, particularly philosophical liars, should be prosecuted like any other liar that creates a hazard in the commons. Most philosophers function akin to tiger traps baited with words and are completely unaccountable for the tragedy and death that they have caused. I am a philosopher. As such, a prosecutor. Anything that survives prosecution, and which I am willing to warranty with my life, is worthy of publication into the commons. If either of those conditions fails, then I should be punished for it. Why should philosophers have greater permissiveness than the manufacturers of ladders, and the brewers of coffee, or the makers of drugs? They shouldn’t. Because arguably, philosophers and theologians ship the worst product that causes the most harm of any product man has made. (I know. Everyone wants to play philosopher at everyone else’s expense just like they want to free-ride on everyone else in every other capacity in life. But speech produces consequences. And while we may always say truthful speech produces consequences that we must bear the cost of, there is no reason we must bear the cost of false speech. Especially given how much of it there is, and how expensive it has been for western civilization.) THE MOST IMPORTANT SEQUENCE – Testimony(what can I see not infer) – Vocabulary – Grammar – Logic(reason) and Measurement(math) – Natural Law – Micro Economics (incentives) – Strict Construction – Rhetoric (argument) -Cheers Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine https://www.facebook.com/groups/1262749110415707/permalink/1304648022892482/