***Religions evolve slowly and normatively. Common, discovered, laws evolve rapidly in response to new discoveries of methods of parasitism. Between durable religion and tactical law, Political Models serve only as organizational tools that we use to advance our strategies. In our case, that strategy is liberty. We do not fear liberty. We can compete on merit. It’s those that cannot compete on merit that fear a condition of liberty. So it is rational to say you ‘are’ a member of a religion, and rational to say that to achieve liberty in the current context you suggest we employ one political model or another. But to grant political models the same constancy as religion is to de-facto cast political models as mystical religions independent of world circumstances, instead of operational tools by which we modify the world’s circumstances in pursuit of the political conditions we prefer. Steady-state political orders are as fictional a theory as an evenly rotating economy. Neither exists or can.*** Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine
Source: Original Site Post
-
Yes, There Exists A Scientific Method
ACTUALLY, THERE IS A SCIENTIFIC METHOD. ITS JUST NOT PECULIAR TO SCIENCE. ITS THE UNIVERSAL EPISTEMIC METHOD, BUT ONLY SCIENTISTS PRACTICE IT WITH ANY DILIGENCE. Just as we can test axiomatic(declarative) systems for consistency dimension-by-dimension; Say, like: -> identity(pairing off) -> arithmetic(number), -> geometry(space), -> calculus (motion) -> equlibria (stocastics) -> And like: -> length,-> width,-> area,-> volume,-> change,-> motion -> We can also test theoretic (descriptive) systems, like: -> Reason, -> Rationalism, -> Logic, -> Empiricism We can test also each dimension of the entirety of reality: 1 – categorical consistency (identity) 2 – internal consistency (logic) 3 – external consistency (empiricism) 4 – existential possibility (operationalism) 5 – rational possibility (morality) 6 – scope accountability (full accounting, limits, and parsimony) So there is a scientific method, because scientists are the only ones who use it with any degree of discipline: “My warranty that I have done due diligence in testing categorical internal and external consistency, existential and rational possibility, and scope accountability.” If an individual has done due diligence against each dimension it is almost impossible for him to engage in: 1 – error 2 – bias 3 – wishful thinking 4 – suggestion 5 – overloading 6 – obscurantism 7 – pseudoscience 8 – deceit Given that our information is never complete, and if it is complete we speak in tautology not truth, then we can never know we speak the truth even if we do so. What we can know is that we have done due diligence against speaking falsehood. That is the best that we can do. And this is what it means to “Testify”. And that is what it means to be a member of western civilization: to learn to do such due diligence that whenever you speak, you give testimony. It may not be true but you warranty that you have done your duty not to state a falsehood. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine
-
Yes, There Exists A Scientific Method
ACTUALLY, THERE IS A SCIENTIFIC METHOD. ITS JUST NOT PECULIAR TO SCIENCE. ITS THE UNIVERSAL EPISTEMIC METHOD, BUT ONLY SCIENTISTS PRACTICE IT WITH ANY DILIGENCE. Just as we can test axiomatic(declarative) systems for consistency dimension-by-dimension; Say, like: -> identity(pairing off) -> arithmetic(number), -> geometry(space), -> calculus (motion) -> equlibria (stocastics) -> And like: -> length,-> width,-> area,-> volume,-> change,-> motion -> We can also test theoretic (descriptive) systems, like: -> Reason, -> Rationalism, -> Logic, -> Empiricism We can test also each dimension of the entirety of reality: 1 – categorical consistency (identity) 2 – internal consistency (logic) 3 – external consistency (empiricism) 4 – existential possibility (operationalism) 5 – rational possibility (morality) 6 – scope accountability (full accounting, limits, and parsimony) So there is a scientific method, because scientists are the only ones who use it with any degree of discipline: “My warranty that I have done due diligence in testing categorical internal and external consistency, existential and rational possibility, and scope accountability.” If an individual has done due diligence against each dimension it is almost impossible for him to engage in: 1 – error 2 – bias 3 – wishful thinking 4 – suggestion 5 – overloading 6 – obscurantism 7 – pseudoscience 8 – deceit Given that our information is never complete, and if it is complete we speak in tautology not truth, then we can never know we speak the truth even if we do so. What we can know is that we have done due diligence against speaking falsehood. That is the best that we can do. And this is what it means to “Testify”. And that is what it means to be a member of western civilization: to learn to do such due diligence that whenever you speak, you give testimony. It may not be true but you warranty that you have done your duty not to state a falsehood. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine
-
Propertarianism Gives Aspies A Language With Which To Discourse With Normals.
[W]orking with the intense-world model of autism, what we ‘aspies’ experience is a lot of localized (intense) but un-integrated phenomenon, and then we try to explain these intense phenomenon to others. Conversely, normals tend to explain the (diluted) single aggregate experience without having visibility into the (intense) localized phenomenon. It’s much easier for them to communicate the RESULTING experience that we DON”T have, than it is for us to communicate the SET of experiences we DO have. Unfortunately for them and fortunately for us, and therefore fortunately for all of us, just as we cannot inspect how we move our limbs – they just move, normals cannot inspect how they obtain those aggregates. We can inspect how we obtain those aggregates at the cost of losing the ability to communicate in aggregates. Or put differently, we speak in much higher information density with higher causal relation. They speak in lower information density with higher experiential description. One of the things I feel most proud of is giving us (intense world thinkers) a language that lets us communicate WITHOUT Experiential loading, in a language that while wordy is comprehensible both to us and to normals. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.
-
Propertarianism Gives Aspies A Language With Which To Discourse With Normals.
[W]orking with the intense-world model of autism, what we ‘aspies’ experience is a lot of localized (intense) but un-integrated phenomenon, and then we try to explain these intense phenomenon to others. Conversely, normals tend to explain the (diluted) single aggregate experience without having visibility into the (intense) localized phenomenon. It’s much easier for them to communicate the RESULTING experience that we DON”T have, than it is for us to communicate the SET of experiences we DO have. Unfortunately for them and fortunately for us, and therefore fortunately for all of us, just as we cannot inspect how we move our limbs – they just move, normals cannot inspect how they obtain those aggregates. We can inspect how we obtain those aggregates at the cost of losing the ability to communicate in aggregates. Or put differently, we speak in much higher information density with higher causal relation. They speak in lower information density with higher experiential description. One of the things I feel most proud of is giving us (intense world thinkers) a language that lets us communicate WITHOUT Experiential loading, in a language that while wordy is comprehensible both to us and to normals. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.
-
A Conversation Between Taleb and Doolittle
Rob De Geer I want you and Nassim Taleb to tango. My two favorites at the moment. Curt Doolittle We can talk and educate, but we can’t really ‘debate’ because we are saying very similar things. I think I would frame the argument, and that my terminology would be so superior that it was inescapable, and that it would show that we’re in violent agreement – and that I understand what he is doing but he doesn’t know about or understand what I’m doing. So (a) I would ‘win’ only in the sense that I would frame the discourse with a superior descriptive language, and (b) we would both win, and perhaps mankind would win, by showing that we are not necessarily outliers but representatives of a scientific movement to counteract the pseudosciences of the 20th century. Rob De Geer OOOooo I want to see it more because of those statements. Curt Doolittle I think the big difference between Taleb and I, besides our obvious and genetic cultural differences and our equally big round heads, is that my ‘ego’ is purely a marketing position, and his is a natural extension of his background and character. My mother’s Catholicism worked on me. 🙂 In other words, It would be good for mankind but I don’t see him engaging me until I publish. Even though my work would fend off many of the criticisms he receives. I’m not actually keen on being famous. He is. Different currencies for different souls. Curt Doolittle (after thinking a bit) Taleb’s LITERARY method relies on ANALOGY and won’t necessarily help him get to an answer. His mathematics are excellent but don’t seem to be providing him enough parsimony. And for the same reasons I criticize apriorism as a special cast of empiricism, I don’t *THINK* until we determine what it is we need to measure and how to measure it, that we can measure it empirically. This is why I prefer my method, which should provide us with an understanding of what we need to measure so that we can measure it. All these distortions accumulate throughout the economy and they burn down accumulated capital of every sort: genetic, cultural, normative, reproductive, productive, fixed, and monumental. Both top down (empiricism) or bottom up (operationalism) help us solve different categories of problems – and then we use the opposite technique to test our hypothesis. We need both tools. I’ve been hoping Nassim would get a little closer than his demonstration that we require logarithmically increasing amounts of information to gain any insight into outliers and black swans. I think there is an operational explanation for this, and that just as we measure economies with sets of anchor measures, we can measure for black swans with sets of anchor measures. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
-
A Conversation Between Taleb and Doolittle
Rob De Geer I want you and Nassim Taleb to tango. My two favorites at the moment. Curt Doolittle We can talk and educate, but we can’t really ‘debate’ because we are saying very similar things. I think I would frame the argument, and that my terminology would be so superior that it was inescapable, and that it would show that we’re in violent agreement – and that I understand what he is doing but he doesn’t know about or understand what I’m doing. So (a) I would ‘win’ only in the sense that I would frame the discourse with a superior descriptive language, and (b) we would both win, and perhaps mankind would win, by showing that we are not necessarily outliers but representatives of a scientific movement to counteract the pseudosciences of the 20th century. Rob De Geer OOOooo I want to see it more because of those statements. Curt Doolittle I think the big difference between Taleb and I, besides our obvious and genetic cultural differences and our equally big round heads, is that my ‘ego’ is purely a marketing position, and his is a natural extension of his background and character. My mother’s Catholicism worked on me. 🙂 In other words, It would be good for mankind but I don’t see him engaging me until I publish. Even though my work would fend off many of the criticisms he receives. I’m not actually keen on being famous. He is. Different currencies for different souls. Curt Doolittle (after thinking a bit) Taleb’s LITERARY method relies on ANALOGY and won’t necessarily help him get to an answer. His mathematics are excellent but don’t seem to be providing him enough parsimony. And for the same reasons I criticize apriorism as a special cast of empiricism, I don’t *THINK* until we determine what it is we need to measure and how to measure it, that we can measure it empirically. This is why I prefer my method, which should provide us with an understanding of what we need to measure so that we can measure it. All these distortions accumulate throughout the economy and they burn down accumulated capital of every sort: genetic, cultural, normative, reproductive, productive, fixed, and monumental. Both top down (empiricism) or bottom up (operationalism) help us solve different categories of problems – and then we use the opposite technique to test our hypothesis. We need both tools. I’ve been hoping Nassim would get a little closer than his demonstration that we require logarithmically increasing amounts of information to gain any insight into outliers and black swans. I think there is an operational explanation for this, and that just as we measure economies with sets of anchor measures, we can measure for black swans with sets of anchor measures. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
-
Smartness vs Genius
There is a big difference between smartness and genius. I consider quite a few people smarter than I am in this dimension or that – and I think it’s related to their ability to master things like chess, chemistry, and mathematics, using axiomatic systems to permute applications of rules within the limits of the game. In other words, those people that live in a world of proofs I consider smart.
I suppose I COULD work in that field, but axiomatic thought is a very different way of thinking from theoretic. In my world there are no rules, there is only information and order. To some degree I see all rules as errors, or contrivances, the same way I see legislation and norms.
Unlike the axiomatic mind, the theoretical mind does not work with boundaries at all, but with creating new orders in order to break through the boundaries that limit us.
This, I think, is the difference between the techniques of deviant and cunning, moral and wise, axiomatic and smart, theoretical and genius. Some of us cunningly circumvent rules, some morally work within them, some us axiomatically think of new ways to apply them, and some of us theoretically think of new organization of rules – all of us using slightly different methods of decidability.
Intelligence can be applied using cunning (immoral), moral (wise), axiomatic (smart), and theoretical (genius) methods. I think this is the correct framing of a problem where we generally confuse ourselves through conflation, and allows us to consider ethics and methods of thought as separate axis.
-
Smartness vs Genius
There is a big difference between smartness and genius. I consider quite a few people smarter than I am in this dimension or that – and I think it’s related to their ability to master things like chess, chemistry, and mathematics, using axiomatic systems to permute applications of rules within the limits of the game. In other words, those people that live in a world of proofs I consider smart.
I suppose I COULD work in that field, but axiomatic thought is a very different way of thinking from theoretic. In my world there are no rules, there is only information and order. To some degree I see all rules as errors, or contrivances, the same way I see legislation and norms.
Unlike the axiomatic mind, the theoretical mind does not work with boundaries at all, but with creating new orders in order to break through the boundaries that limit us.
This, I think, is the difference between the techniques of deviant and cunning, moral and wise, axiomatic and smart, theoretical and genius. Some of us cunningly circumvent rules, some morally work within them, some us axiomatically think of new ways to apply them, and some of us theoretically think of new organization of rules – all of us using slightly different methods of decidability.
Intelligence can be applied using cunning (immoral), moral (wise), axiomatic (smart), and theoretical (genius) methods. I think this is the correct framing of a problem where we generally confuse ourselves through conflation, and allows us to consider ethics and methods of thought as separate axis.
-
Literary Philosophy Is Just Speculative Fiction
Friday, August 5, 2016 at 2:18pm [I]t’s probably about time to classify Continental Philosophy as little more than a bridge between historical and fictional literature. – operational documentation, – descriptive historical literature, – propositional philosophical literature, – authoritarian pseudoscientific literature – authoritarian supernatural mythical literature – escapist fanciful fictional literature, – a parable – poetry