Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • The Absence of Consideration for Costs in Popper’s Critical Rationalism.

    [T]HE ABSENCE OF COST IN POPPER’S CRITICAL RATIONALISM AND TESTIMONIALISM’S COMPLETENESS.

    —Since we can never know for sure what is true and what is false, —

    1) **We can however perform due diligence on our hypotheses, and pay the cost of that due diligence, rather than fail to do so, and thereby export the cost of our falsification onto the commons.** Which is why I raise the question, since it is what I believe you’re advocating. 2) Newton’s theory is not so much false as it less precise than Einstein’s. If that were true then Mythic, Virtue, and Rule ethics would all be ‘false’ rather than the degree of precision possible given the human subject using them. Recipes work or do not work. The verbal description we give to the category of those recipes (the theory), constructed as a verbal statement of arbitrary precision, is less precise (more general) than the recipe (sequence of operations). And imprecision is useful to us so that we can freely associate opportunities for the use of the theory, and then test them. But it appears that we are very good at criticizing theories. The problem is not criticizing theories, but the instrumentation necessary, and cost of criticizing those theories. Popper did no research, he made only an a priori assumption. It certainly APPEARS that in choosing between alternatives the least-cost method leads to discovery if for no other reason than the universe operates by least cost itself. So the statement that we know nothing for certain is not an empirical, and not even a logical, but a moral one: that we cannot use theories of arbitrary precision to impose costs upon one another, under the appeal to the authority of truth or science. 3) But Popperians like many libertarians, seem to habitually seek to justify exporting of costs in order to satisfy their needs for novelty and order (Big5: Openness to experience, Moral Foundations: economic and personal liberty. Propertarianism: acquisition of novel experiences. ) And popper is visibly circumventing costs in hist arguments, as if we are not speaking of a physical and material world, but a verbal, legal, or platonic one. Just as progressives seek to export their experiments ‘for the common good’ onto others. Just as conservatives wish to export their concern for risk-abatement onto others. Libertarians seek to export their admittedly lower cost of self stimulation onto others without taking care that they have performed due diligence against falsehood – if not also immorality (harm). When (a) the empirical evidence suggests that we do kill off false theories very quickly, (b) that we are largely engaged in the process of refining theories, not falsifying them, (d) that the number of theories that are ‘challenging’ is fairly small, but the number of falsehoods extant are very large (c) that least-cost is indeed a method of aggregate decidability (critical preference) (d) that it is far more expensive to construct a falsification of a welcome error or deception than it is to produce a welcome error or deception. 4) Popper/Darwin’s innovation was the systemic use of ‘survival’ over historical ‘justification for being’, meaning that he inverted the search for truth from accumulating justifications for hypotheses: as Rodin builds his sculpture from clay; into accumulating criticisms to see if the theory survives: as Michelangelo removes the rock to expose the potential sculpture underneath. So why would we seek to advance knowledge rather than eliminate lies and falsehoods? Why would we not worry more about preventing false and deceitful intellectual products more so than truthful ones? Would that not direct capital (costs) to truthful rather than untruthful results? So you see – this problem of costs, so fundamental to the natural laws of human behavior, and the physical laws of the extant universe is absent from popperian thought. And I am always struck with “why?” Popper was a cosmopolitan just as I am an anglo empiricist, and Kant is a german rationalist. Popper’s tradition was religion, religious law, avoidance of paying into the commons, willing, if not advocacy of, privatization of the commons, and an avoidance of externalized costs so universal to western thought that we are unaware of alternative methods of thinking. None of us escape our framings. But popper’s vision was incomplete. He ‘hooked onto’ falsification (survival) as a life raft, but he didn’t grasp that each dimension of existence requires us to perform due diligence (which again, is a cost-based framing, whereas falsification is a legal or religious based framing). Warranties of Due Diligence: – categorical consistency (non-conflation) – Internal consistency (logical) – external correspondence (empirical consistency) – existential consistency (operational definitions) – full accounting ( against selection bias ) – parsimony and limits ( precision ) – morality – ( natural law of cooperation) consisting of productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, limited to externalities of the same criteria.) Because having performed these due diligences, it is extremely difficult to engage in error, bias, wishful thinking, loading-framing-overloading-suggestion, and deceit. In fact, it would be almost impossible. Simply stating most arguments analytically in operational language causes self refutation. Hence the only reasons to escape these due diligences are; 1 – because one is merely ignorant that such a warranty of due diligence can be performed, or how to perform it. 2 – to escape paying costs of due diligence, like the distributor of faulty products. 3 – to deceive or profit from, or achieve conquest by, the distribution of wishful thinking and deceit. 4 – because we do not limit the market for distribution of intellectual works to those which are warrantied of due diligence, by treating the informational commons like we do the air, land, and sea: as commons that must be protected from harm; and under universal standing allowing us to pursue restitution for such harm against those who fail to perform due diligence on their intellectual products. This may be a bit to digest, but you can see between the scope of your argument and the scope of mine the demonstration of the technique. Cheers Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Truth, Law of Information, Natural Law of Cooperation, Physical Law of the Universe

    (religion) (read it and weep) (advances on hume, damning of rawls) [O]ur brains are smaller than those of our distant ancestors. With the evolution of language we were able to learn more by shared calculation: in the form of thinking and reasoning than we could by our own observation, memory, and judgement. By communicating using language thereby transferring experience, we extended our perception, could make use of other’s memories. But with greater perception and less individual certainty of that perception, we needed a means of judgement. Or what we call, a method of decidability. With greater numbers, and a greater division of perception, we required even greater tools of judgement, of choice, of decidability. We needed ‘theories’ of the good. And those theories evolve in parallel with the extent of our cooperation: –From:– “What is good for me?” and “What is true enough for me to act?” using the criteria “So that what I gain by the action is preferable to not doing so.” –to:– 1) What is good for me : what is true enough for me to act without retaliation 2) What is good for me and good for us : what is true enough to encourage future cooperation? 3) What is good for me and good for us, and good for all those like us, so that we encourage cooperation of others, and do not encourage retaliation. 4) What is good for me, and good for us, and good for all mankind, so that we TRANSCEND. (Evolve). This problem of decidability is the origin of our myth, religion, and philosophy – and now science. These techniques Just as in ethics we start with mythical inspiration, and evolve into ethical virtues, to ethical rules, to ethical outcomes, we evolve from the actions of the individual, to the ethics of cooperation, to the ethics of cooperation at scale, to the ethics of transcendence of man. So, to confer decidability upon all, from the young child to the old and wise, the method of decision making must be accessible for use by everyone from the young child to the old and wise. A religion comprises a group evolutionary strategy, wherein members are taught metaphysical, mythical, traditional, and normative methods of decidability, by means of analogy. Traditional law codifies this strategy in prohibitions. Why prohibitions? Because we can all equally refrain from the violation of that group evolutionary strategy, but we cannot equally contribute to the furtherance of that group evolutionary strategy. We are equal in ability to not do, but we are not equal in ability to do. A group’s evolutionary strategy can be successful or unsuccessful in the persistence of the group – such as by being dependent upon local phenomenon that can change: the worship of the sun so logical in the agrarian era, is no longer so logical in an era of trade, or of industry, or of energy, or of information. A group’s evolutionary strategy can be successful but violate principle three: in that it encourages retaliation: murder, career thievery, Gypsy petty parasitism, Jewish organized and systemic parasitism, muslim invasion and raiding, Russian low trust propaganda and lying, and Chinese and European ‘Asymmetric Colonialism’. A groups evolutionary strategy can violate principle four by inhibiting transcendence – such as islam’s demand for respect and mandated ignorance – or a strategy can construct transcendence: Western Indo European Natural Law. A group’s evolutionary strategy can provide the minimum resistance to transcendence and the maximum possibility of transcendence: Truth telling law (Truth), Natural Law (cooperation), and physical law (correspondence), the incremental, total suppression of parasitism, under the Common Law. And genetic suppression by the incremental culling of the parasitic from the group by separation, sterilization, and hanging. And while we can perhaps tech these concepts to children through repetition, we cannot teach it to them as inspiration, without myth, ritual, tradition, and norm to persist it across generations, and to convey it to all those regardless of age and ability. That we require ‘religion’: myth, ritual and tradition, in narrative, literary form is a product of man’s intellectual evolution from innocent and ignorant child to jaded and experienced sage. But whether stated as religious narrative, reasoned moral argument, rational justification, strictly constructed law, ratio-scientific criticism or testimonial truth, the actions that result from the use of these forms of communication must produce correspondent results. So it is not the method of conveyance that we judge – since the method of argument is a measure of the speaker and the audience – but whether The only transcendent philosophy must be natural law of man and physical law of the universe, stated testimonially – the best that man’s words are able to state. And therefore the only transcendent religion is Testimonial Truth, The Natural Law of Cooperation, The Physical Law of Correspondence. All else is lie to obscure parasitism and predation, or it is error that not must be not tolerated, but corrected. If any mythological, reasonable, rational, ratio-scientific argument is incompatible with natural law, then it is merely an act of predation – an act of war – not a religion. Christianity and Indo European Paganism are compatible with Natural Law in the production of resulting behavior, as long as inbreeding is prohibited, tolerance for violation of natural law is limited, and the culling of the underclasses by expulsion, separation, incarceration, sterilization, and hanging is encouraged as necessary for the preservation of natural law and the achievement of transcendence. The Church may not preserve its dependents at the expense of natural law or at the expense of transcendence. That would be the work of the self interest of the bureaucracy of man, not the work of Truth and Transcendence. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Truth, Law of Information, Natural Law of Cooperation, Physical Law of the Universe

    (religion) (read it and weep) (advances on hume, damning of rawls) [O]ur brains are smaller than those of our distant ancestors. With the evolution of language we were able to learn more by shared calculation: in the form of thinking and reasoning than we could by our own observation, memory, and judgement. By communicating using language thereby transferring experience, we extended our perception, could make use of other’s memories. But with greater perception and less individual certainty of that perception, we needed a means of judgement. Or what we call, a method of decidability. With greater numbers, and a greater division of perception, we required even greater tools of judgement, of choice, of decidability. We needed ‘theories’ of the good. And those theories evolve in parallel with the extent of our cooperation: –From:– “What is good for me?” and “What is true enough for me to act?” using the criteria “So that what I gain by the action is preferable to not doing so.” –to:– 1) What is good for me : what is true enough for me to act without retaliation 2) What is good for me and good for us : what is true enough to encourage future cooperation? 3) What is good for me and good for us, and good for all those like us, so that we encourage cooperation of others, and do not encourage retaliation. 4) What is good for me, and good for us, and good for all mankind, so that we TRANSCEND. (Evolve). This problem of decidability is the origin of our myth, religion, and philosophy – and now science. These techniques Just as in ethics we start with mythical inspiration, and evolve into ethical virtues, to ethical rules, to ethical outcomes, we evolve from the actions of the individual, to the ethics of cooperation, to the ethics of cooperation at scale, to the ethics of transcendence of man. So, to confer decidability upon all, from the young child to the old and wise, the method of decision making must be accessible for use by everyone from the young child to the old and wise. A religion comprises a group evolutionary strategy, wherein members are taught metaphysical, mythical, traditional, and normative methods of decidability, by means of analogy. Traditional law codifies this strategy in prohibitions. Why prohibitions? Because we can all equally refrain from the violation of that group evolutionary strategy, but we cannot equally contribute to the furtherance of that group evolutionary strategy. We are equal in ability to not do, but we are not equal in ability to do. A group’s evolutionary strategy can be successful or unsuccessful in the persistence of the group – such as by being dependent upon local phenomenon that can change: the worship of the sun so logical in the agrarian era, is no longer so logical in an era of trade, or of industry, or of energy, or of information. A group’s evolutionary strategy can be successful but violate principle three: in that it encourages retaliation: murder, career thievery, Gypsy petty parasitism, Jewish organized and systemic parasitism, muslim invasion and raiding, Russian low trust propaganda and lying, and Chinese and European ‘Asymmetric Colonialism’. A groups evolutionary strategy can violate principle four by inhibiting transcendence – such as islam’s demand for respect and mandated ignorance – or a strategy can construct transcendence: Western Indo European Natural Law. A group’s evolutionary strategy can provide the minimum resistance to transcendence and the maximum possibility of transcendence: Truth telling law (Truth), Natural Law (cooperation), and physical law (correspondence), the incremental, total suppression of parasitism, under the Common Law. And genetic suppression by the incremental culling of the parasitic from the group by separation, sterilization, and hanging. And while we can perhaps tech these concepts to children through repetition, we cannot teach it to them as inspiration, without myth, ritual, tradition, and norm to persist it across generations, and to convey it to all those regardless of age and ability. That we require ‘religion’: myth, ritual and tradition, in narrative, literary form is a product of man’s intellectual evolution from innocent and ignorant child to jaded and experienced sage. But whether stated as religious narrative, reasoned moral argument, rational justification, strictly constructed law, ratio-scientific criticism or testimonial truth, the actions that result from the use of these forms of communication must produce correspondent results. So it is not the method of conveyance that we judge – since the method of argument is a measure of the speaker and the audience – but whether The only transcendent philosophy must be natural law of man and physical law of the universe, stated testimonially – the best that man’s words are able to state. And therefore the only transcendent religion is Testimonial Truth, The Natural Law of Cooperation, The Physical Law of Correspondence. All else is lie to obscure parasitism and predation, or it is error that not must be not tolerated, but corrected. If any mythological, reasonable, rational, ratio-scientific argument is incompatible with natural law, then it is merely an act of predation – an act of war – not a religion. Christianity and Indo European Paganism are compatible with Natural Law in the production of resulting behavior, as long as inbreeding is prohibited, tolerance for violation of natural law is limited, and the culling of the underclasses by expulsion, separation, incarceration, sterilization, and hanging is encouraged as necessary for the preservation of natural law and the achievement of transcendence. The Church may not preserve its dependents at the expense of natural law or at the expense of transcendence. That would be the work of the self interest of the bureaucracy of man, not the work of Truth and Transcendence. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • We Agree to Grant Women Equal Rights to Property…

    [W]e agree, with the provisions… ***”We agree to grant you equal rights in matters of property under the provision that you limit reproduction to kin, and create no moral hazard by bearing offspring that the rest of us must pay to raise and insure. Why? Because it is not necessary to grant you equal rights in any matter. It is merely beneficial for all of us if we do. But this benefit cannot come at the cost of our kin. Or it is of no benefit at all.”*** (there we go) I’ve been framing a counter argument for feminists equal to ‘why don’t I kill you’ as a basis for cooperation. This quote as the same argumentative starting point.

  • We Agree to Grant Women Equal Rights to Property…

    [W]e agree, with the provisions… ***”We agree to grant you equal rights in matters of property under the provision that you limit reproduction to kin, and create no moral hazard by bearing offspring that the rest of us must pay to raise and insure. Why? Because it is not necessary to grant you equal rights in any matter. It is merely beneficial for all of us if we do. But this benefit cannot come at the cost of our kin. Or it is of no benefit at all.”*** (there we go) I’ve been framing a counter argument for feminists equal to ‘why don’t I kill you’ as a basis for cooperation. This quote as the same argumentative starting point.

  • Reminder to New Friends and Followers

    [I] write controversial philosophy. If it was not controversial it would not be revolutionary. – And I embrace controversy as good marketing, and the good conduct of argumentative research. *** http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2016/01/18/yes-im-controversial-but-why/ If my work is offensive, it means the person offended is a thief. That may seem an outrageous claim, but it will survive all criticisms. Truth is often painful. I don’t do racism, I do classism (eugenics). I’m for as diverse a planet of tribes as possible. And my understanding is that the differences between the races are almost entirely the product of differences in rates of reproduction of the lower classes. *** http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/?s=racism I don’t to statism I do nationalism.I don’t do anarchy, I do nomocracy (rule of law) under Natural Law, where my concept of natural law is not ‘fuzzy’ but thoroughly articulated. *** http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/?s=nomocracy I don’t do escape from the commons, I do market government for the construction of commons by exchange. *** http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/?s=market+government My work is not sentimental, not rationalistic, but social science hung on a philosophical framework, as a means of uniting science, philosophy, morality, and law. Propertarianism requires a great deal of general knowledge, and Testimonialism a great deal of understanding of philosophy and the philosophy of science, and possibly of the foundations of logic and mathematics. The current phase of my work addresses the problem of what we call religion, but better stated is the encoding of evolutionary strategy in a set of metaphysical value judgements, and their embodiment in myth, ritual, tradition and norms. So my current work is probably more accessible than the previous few years. My goal is to create a revolution that overthrows the Century of Lies and Mysticism (20th century). But moral men need more than just revolutionary sentiment. They need: 1) Moral Authority : We have been lied to, our civilization destroyed, our culture intentionally undermined, and our kin and relations the subject of a slow constant conquest and genocide. 2) A Solution : An alternative set of institutions that are capable of intertemporal persistence across many generations. 3) A Plan of Transition : the means by which to convert from the current state to the new state so that individuals and groups can envision that transition rather than fear the uncertainty of it. 4) A Method Of Revolution : The methods by which we raise the cost of the status quo until our solution is preferable to the current chaos. My work, my ‘book’, is an attempt to provide moral authority, A solution, A Plan of Transition, and a Method of Revolution. WELCOME TO THE REVOLUTION http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/08/06/dear-newbies-welcome-to-the-revolution/ SHORT COURSES IN PROPERTARIANISM http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2016/01/05/an-overview-of-propertarianism-for-serious-newbies/ WE NEED 100 MEN WHO CAN ARGUE USING PROPERTARIAN AND TESTIMONIALIST ARGUMENTS. Because that is what it will take to generate sufficient discussion and awareness to cause a revolution.

  • Reminder to New Friends and Followers

    [I] write controversial philosophy. If it was not controversial it would not be revolutionary. – And I embrace controversy as good marketing, and the good conduct of argumentative research. *** http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2016/01/18/yes-im-controversial-but-why/ If my work is offensive, it means the person offended is a thief. That may seem an outrageous claim, but it will survive all criticisms. Truth is often painful. I don’t do racism, I do classism (eugenics). I’m for as diverse a planet of tribes as possible. And my understanding is that the differences between the races are almost entirely the product of differences in rates of reproduction of the lower classes. *** http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/?s=racism I don’t to statism I do nationalism.I don’t do anarchy, I do nomocracy (rule of law) under Natural Law, where my concept of natural law is not ‘fuzzy’ but thoroughly articulated. *** http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/?s=nomocracy I don’t do escape from the commons, I do market government for the construction of commons by exchange. *** http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/?s=market+government My work is not sentimental, not rationalistic, but social science hung on a philosophical framework, as a means of uniting science, philosophy, morality, and law. Propertarianism requires a great deal of general knowledge, and Testimonialism a great deal of understanding of philosophy and the philosophy of science, and possibly of the foundations of logic and mathematics. The current phase of my work addresses the problem of what we call religion, but better stated is the encoding of evolutionary strategy in a set of metaphysical value judgements, and their embodiment in myth, ritual, tradition and norms. So my current work is probably more accessible than the previous few years. My goal is to create a revolution that overthrows the Century of Lies and Mysticism (20th century). But moral men need more than just revolutionary sentiment. They need: 1) Moral Authority : We have been lied to, our civilization destroyed, our culture intentionally undermined, and our kin and relations the subject of a slow constant conquest and genocide. 2) A Solution : An alternative set of institutions that are capable of intertemporal persistence across many generations. 3) A Plan of Transition : the means by which to convert from the current state to the new state so that individuals and groups can envision that transition rather than fear the uncertainty of it. 4) A Method Of Revolution : The methods by which we raise the cost of the status quo until our solution is preferable to the current chaos. My work, my ‘book’, is an attempt to provide moral authority, A solution, A Plan of Transition, and a Method of Revolution. WELCOME TO THE REVOLUTION http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/08/06/dear-newbies-welcome-to-the-revolution/ SHORT COURSES IN PROPERTARIANISM http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2016/01/05/an-overview-of-propertarianism-for-serious-newbies/ WE NEED 100 MEN WHO CAN ARGUE USING PROPERTARIAN AND TESTIMONIALIST ARGUMENTS. Because that is what it will take to generate sufficient discussion and awareness to cause a revolution.

  • The 19th Century Thinkers Were So Close…

    [S]pencer and Darwin were so close. Unfortunately mises, popper, hayek, brouwer, bridgman, and poincare failed to carry them across the threshold. Why? Because the combination of women, marx, boaz, freud, created a sentimental alternative to truth – a great lie. And after the great war, keynes created a way to use consumption to recover from it, and the promise of something new to mask the regret of the catastrophe. In other words, we replaced art, heroism, and truth, with crass consumption and, proletarianism to hold the state together, an innumerate pseudoscience to systematize it, and postmodern lies to defend it all. I understand that we must produce a synthesis of truth and religion. This is the hardest objective to solve. Principally because men need costly rituals in order to defend the principles that they attest to. I understand how the previous century failed. I understand why the great lies succeeded in the post war era, for the same reason that christianity succeeded in the post-war and post-plaque era. I think I understand how to create that religion, philosophy, logic, and science. Please god give me strength, energy, time, and resources to do it.

  • The 19th Century Thinkers Were So Close…

    [S]pencer and Darwin were so close. Unfortunately mises, popper, hayek, brouwer, bridgman, and poincare failed to carry them across the threshold. Why? Because the combination of women, marx, boaz, freud, created a sentimental alternative to truth – a great lie. And after the great war, keynes created a way to use consumption to recover from it, and the promise of something new to mask the regret of the catastrophe. In other words, we replaced art, heroism, and truth, with crass consumption and, proletarianism to hold the state together, an innumerate pseudoscience to systematize it, and postmodern lies to defend it all. I understand that we must produce a synthesis of truth and religion. This is the hardest objective to solve. Principally because men need costly rituals in order to defend the principles that they attest to. I understand how the previous century failed. I understand why the great lies succeeded in the post war era, for the same reason that christianity succeeded in the post-war and post-plaque era. I think I understand how to create that religion, philosophy, logic, and science. Please god give me strength, energy, time, and resources to do it.

  • “Your Audacity Impresses and Amuses Me”

    —“Your audacity impresses and amuses me.”–

    [G]iven that I’m outside of the academy, I am both too stupid to know that it cannot be done, and unregulated by academics who would prevent me from trying such an absurd thing. So I try in ignorance to achieve the unachievable. Now that I’ve gone through most of intellectual history, it seems that this same stupidity is common among the philosophers. Smith, Kant, Hume, Darwin, Spencer and Mises, Popper and Hayek all did the same. It appears that the academy is not a producer of great ideas, but a deterrent to them. Scarily enough it seems like I’ve made more progress than the others. For the simple reason that programming teaches you how to think a certain way. And that certain way is how we must construct laws: so that they are calculable not merely ‘reasonable’. I have no aires to protect like academics and politicians. I do not need money from book sales. I don’t care about the accolades of scholars. I’m just a lone lunatic slaving away at an impossible task, and out of dumb luck and circumstance have discovered the solution to the problem of the social sciences. We are subjects of our time. That is all.