[E]ven if I am skilled in the arts, it is an intellectual skill. Even if I enjoy the arts, it is an intellectual appreciation – a sense of wonder not empathy. I am very well aware that I have a ‘scientistic’ mind both by nature, by upbringing, and by choice, and that experiential methods of argument are exasperating for me. I went to religous schools but I understood the bible as history – and nothing more. The bible’s contents always were nonsense compared to the encyclopedias. Especially its authoritarianism since due to genetic disposition universal in my family, I recoil against authority of any and every kind.. As a child I kept the world map, the constitution, bill of rights, and the declaration on my wall, a set of encyclopedias in my bookcase, and science fiction functioned as my mythos. And that combination of history, law, and myth has stuck with me as my subconscious model both by affinity and choice. I say this because I am aware of my priors both genetic, familial, cultural and experiential. I get nothing from the life of Siddhartha Budda, the Christ, Muhammed, at all. And while I find it tedious, at least I can understand Confucius. I have no dream-world to invoke through association – only an historical one. I see only argument in favor and against actions for the purpose of producing consequences, and only a green and treed earth to revel in, not a life to be endured or suffered. I do not see man as oppressing me, but man in need of suppression of his barbarism. I see man struggling with his incompetence to organize, not skillful oppressors. And perhaps most importantly, I see all language as pretense for power. And in the Koran I see nothing more than a set of prescriptions, promises, and threats designed for the purpose of obtaining power. And in the history of islam I see nothing more than the use of that book to expand by conquest and to institute regressiveness upon civilization. So when someone says “Islam is a Religion of Peace” I see no evidence of it. I see islamic civilization as the greatest failure of any extant group, the greatest threat to mankind, and an interesting problem since for christian africa, christian europe, hindu india, buddhist asia alike – everywhere islam goes it is an enemy that it seems rational for all the great powers to eradicate the same way that the west eradicated the religion of marxist communism. I don’t know what other people see, hear and feel in that book, any more than in the bible or the study of buddha, or the study of judaic law. The content and purpose of these books is military: obtaining power over men and women by force of lying, deceit, shaming, rallying, and violence. The purpose of Aristotle is to give us power over nature so that we may transform it into a garden preferable to man. Not to gain power over others but over ourselves. Not to impose stasis, but invention. Not positive command to specific actions or goals, but prohibition of that which inhibits actions and goals. Not to command man, but to prohibit man from command. In my work I have come to see all man’s words as defense of, justification of, negotiation on behalf of, and assertion of, his reproductive strategy. This is a less ‘christian’ version of Nietzsche’s will to power. Instead it is a will to acquire, of which power is merely one asset to inventory. I do not see in books what is said. I see what strategy is being defended, justified, negotiated, and asserted. I do not allow myself to be programmed by suggestion, and even if I did, I may be incapable of it. In fact, if suggestion is the method of communication I am largely immune. But you see, that is the purpose of narratives: to program by suggestion. A recipe is very different from a story. A natural law under rule of law very different from both. But a narrative programs by suggestion, from the invocation of experience, and not from recipe (positive) and law (negative). So if someone can please explain to me the criteria by which one could judge islam as a religion of peace, I would love to know. But as far as I can tell it is just another scourge of the earth and it has been since its invention. And every people conquered by it suffer for it. It may be effective for the devil to convince us he does not exist. It is even better if he convinces us that he is god. It is possible the Jehova is the devil. It is certain that Allah is. Not by verbal analysis but by demonstrated outcome. Not by claims, not words, not ‘meaning’ (suggestion), but by evidence of the consequences of the long term use of those words. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
Source: Original Site Post
-
Q&A: “Are There Higher Psychologies Than Truth?” (whatever that means)
—“It sounds like you’re recognizing there are higher psychologies than that of the mere scientist.”—
[W]ell, I disagree that for the purposes of LAW and TRUTH claims, that there are ‘higher’ psychologies, but for the purpose of CREATIVITY yes, I agree. My position is that matters of creativity are the subject of aesthetics, not metaphysics, truth, epistemology, ethics, politics or war.
I have observed the same reaction from scientists who think that they’re work is the most ‘spiritually advanced’: the critical rationalists are determined that they not be constrained, and are not responsible for the externalities produced by their failure to warranty that their work has been laundered. Why would I expect artists, authors, theists, philosophers, scientists or whatever other group that claims spiritual superiority to accept both that their desire for creativity in their frame of reference is not special in the least, that their work is not special in the least – only subject to less empirical tests of failure; or to accept accountability for their speech and action, since they themselves would say that they need no such limits, given their moral character, and desire to create not decide, not police, not punish. Except the evidence is otherwise. People want to pretend their smarter than they are, to utter nonsense, to obtain status with nonsense utterances, and not to be held accountable for that which they failed to foresee. People are ridiculous really, in all walks of life. But without such nonsensical pretenses we would not be motivated enough to get out of bed and struggle against the dark forces of time and ignorance. Given that more damage has been done by priests, philosophers, politicians, and pseudoscientists than has been done by warriors, the great plagues, and only matched by volcanic disruption of the ecosystem, it is merely prudent that the most irresponsible people warranty that they do no harm instead of escape liability for that harm they have observably done. Liars all. Particularly to ourselves. So as one who is learning, I understand the desire for creativity and experience. As one who defends civilization I also understand that we can, and must, limit the damage that can be done by those who would seek status and affirmation, and excitement, through falsehood. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine -
Q&A: “Are There Higher Psychologies Than Truth?” (whatever that means)
—“It sounds like you’re recognizing there are higher psychologies than that of the mere scientist.”—
[W]ell, I disagree that for the purposes of LAW and TRUTH claims, that there are ‘higher’ psychologies, but for the purpose of CREATIVITY yes, I agree. My position is that matters of creativity are the subject of aesthetics, not metaphysics, truth, epistemology, ethics, politics or war.
I have observed the same reaction from scientists who think that they’re work is the most ‘spiritually advanced’: the critical rationalists are determined that they not be constrained, and are not responsible for the externalities produced by their failure to warranty that their work has been laundered. Why would I expect artists, authors, theists, philosophers, scientists or whatever other group that claims spiritual superiority to accept both that their desire for creativity in their frame of reference is not special in the least, that their work is not special in the least – only subject to less empirical tests of failure; or to accept accountability for their speech and action, since they themselves would say that they need no such limits, given their moral character, and desire to create not decide, not police, not punish. Except the evidence is otherwise. People want to pretend their smarter than they are, to utter nonsense, to obtain status with nonsense utterances, and not to be held accountable for that which they failed to foresee. People are ridiculous really, in all walks of life. But without such nonsensical pretenses we would not be motivated enough to get out of bed and struggle against the dark forces of time and ignorance. Given that more damage has been done by priests, philosophers, politicians, and pseudoscientists than has been done by warriors, the great plagues, and only matched by volcanic disruption of the ecosystem, it is merely prudent that the most irresponsible people warranty that they do no harm instead of escape liability for that harm they have observably done. Liars all. Particularly to ourselves. So as one who is learning, I understand the desire for creativity and experience. As one who defends civilization I also understand that we can, and must, limit the damage that can be done by those who would seek status and affirmation, and excitement, through falsehood. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine -
Monopoly Thinking is Endemic in Democracy and Monotheism, but Not Polytheism and Propertarianism
[I] see class theory as a set of elites in each of four disciplines of only three of which produce political coercion: 1) Violence(male conservative)/Law, 2) Gossip(female progressive)/Speech 3) Remuneration (male)/Trade, 4) Transformation(male and female)/Production-Craftsmanship. With Transformation not producing elites other than scientists (who are weak influencers). And with some groups succeeding in combining more than one means of coercion in the same group of elites. (Priest/Kings for example).
I see humans a negotiators for their part of the spectrum of the reproductive division of perception, cognition, labor and advocacy. 1) Female consumption, short term (progressive) 2) Male biased production, medium term (libertarian) 3) Male accumulation, long term (conservative) And that through voluntary exchange we ‘calculate’ the optimum for the group, despite the fact that none of us senses the entire spectrum sufficiently to make a general judgement. I see the creative, productive, and ‘true’ processes as merely different points on the timeline of knowledge development: Knowledge Evolution | Production | Norm Evolution 0) Inspiring (sensing and perceiving) | (feeling) 1) Hypothesis |(free association) | (idea) 2) Theorizing | (experimentation) | (trial and error) 3) Law | (production) | (habit) 4) “True” | (truth statement) | (norm) So I don’t interpret a hierarchy of these different perspectives, but excellences in all three, each of which advocates for his temporal constituency. So my understanding is not one of ‘one-ness’, ‘or penultimate man’, or ‘hierarchy’, but that each of us supplies specialization in some domain. And that as needs emerge and opportunities emerge, we make use of the elites in that period with the ability to best lead us into exploiting it. In other words, I merely describe what is, not what I think should be. I don’t try to say that we should do X, only that if we want to evolve that we must NOT do things that prevent us from doing so. There is no recipe for free association (creativity). There are recipes for testing your hypotheses, such that we warranty that they are free of externality. Thanks -
Monopoly Thinking is Endemic in Democracy and Monotheism, but Not Polytheism and Propertarianism
[I] see class theory as a set of elites in each of four disciplines of only three of which produce political coercion: 1) Violence(male conservative)/Law, 2) Gossip(female progressive)/Speech 3) Remuneration (male)/Trade, 4) Transformation(male and female)/Production-Craftsmanship. With Transformation not producing elites other than scientists (who are weak influencers). And with some groups succeeding in combining more than one means of coercion in the same group of elites. (Priest/Kings for example).
I see humans a negotiators for their part of the spectrum of the reproductive division of perception, cognition, labor and advocacy. 1) Female consumption, short term (progressive) 2) Male biased production, medium term (libertarian) 3) Male accumulation, long term (conservative) And that through voluntary exchange we ‘calculate’ the optimum for the group, despite the fact that none of us senses the entire spectrum sufficiently to make a general judgement. I see the creative, productive, and ‘true’ processes as merely different points on the timeline of knowledge development: Knowledge Evolution | Production | Norm Evolution 0) Inspiring (sensing and perceiving) | (feeling) 1) Hypothesis |(free association) | (idea) 2) Theorizing | (experimentation) | (trial and error) 3) Law | (production) | (habit) 4) “True” | (truth statement) | (norm) So I don’t interpret a hierarchy of these different perspectives, but excellences in all three, each of which advocates for his temporal constituency. So my understanding is not one of ‘one-ness’, ‘or penultimate man’, or ‘hierarchy’, but that each of us supplies specialization in some domain. And that as needs emerge and opportunities emerge, we make use of the elites in that period with the ability to best lead us into exploiting it. In other words, I merely describe what is, not what I think should be. I don’t try to say that we should do X, only that if we want to evolve that we must NOT do things that prevent us from doing so. There is no recipe for free association (creativity). There are recipes for testing your hypotheses, such that we warranty that they are free of externality. Thanks -
Proofs and Truths
(important summary) [W]hen we write a proof, we demonstrate that our testimony is existentially possible. Proofs demonstrate existential possibility. But they do not necessarily demonstrate uniqueness. So a proof does not say that this particular road led one to Rome. It merely says that it is indeed possible to arrive in Rome via this road. A truth claim would have to demonstrate that the only possible way to Rome is by this road, or to demonstrate that you had indeed taken this road using incontestable evidence that you had not taken others. This is the difference between subjective and rational and objective and empirical testimony. And when we construct proofs in Propertarian language, we do not make claims of uniqueness: truth; we make claims of possibility: proofs. We prove that our testimony is possible, but not unique. That proof requires that each step in the sequence of our proof is also subjectively testable as a rational operation by a human mind, given the incentives at his disposal. Propertarianism provides the fulfillment of hte promise of praxeology, without the error that such statements are true, only that they are not false. This corrects the Misesian half-success of praxeology by merging it with the Popperian half-success of critical rationalism: the evolution of knowledge by survival of criticism, to achieve the Hayekian half-success that liberty is only obtainable through rule of law; and merging them together with the expensive commons of high trust and truth telling into Testimonialism: the epistemology of Propertarianism. Liberty results only from truth in mind, utterance, and trial by jury, under the total prohibition of parasitism, forcing all men into production of goods, services and commons. The most precious, expensive, and scarce of commons being objective truth and truth telling itself.Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine -
Proofs and Truths
(important summary) [W]hen we write a proof, we demonstrate that our testimony is existentially possible. Proofs demonstrate existential possibility. But they do not necessarily demonstrate uniqueness. So a proof does not say that this particular road led one to Rome. It merely says that it is indeed possible to arrive in Rome via this road. A truth claim would have to demonstrate that the only possible way to Rome is by this road, or to demonstrate that you had indeed taken this road using incontestable evidence that you had not taken others. This is the difference between subjective and rational and objective and empirical testimony. And when we construct proofs in Propertarian language, we do not make claims of uniqueness: truth; we make claims of possibility: proofs. We prove that our testimony is possible, but not unique. That proof requires that each step in the sequence of our proof is also subjectively testable as a rational operation by a human mind, given the incentives at his disposal. Propertarianism provides the fulfillment of hte promise of praxeology, without the error that such statements are true, only that they are not false. This corrects the Misesian half-success of praxeology by merging it with the Popperian half-success of critical rationalism: the evolution of knowledge by survival of criticism, to achieve the Hayekian half-success that liberty is only obtainable through rule of law; and merging them together with the expensive commons of high trust and truth telling into Testimonialism: the epistemology of Propertarianism. Liberty results only from truth in mind, utterance, and trial by jury, under the total prohibition of parasitism, forcing all men into production of goods, services and commons. The most precious, expensive, and scarce of commons being objective truth and truth telling itself.Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine -
Communication, Argument, and Proof
—“Communication, Argument, and Proof are different things unfortunately. I don’t really communicate. I construct arguments and proofs. My “managers” tell me to do that, and leave communication of it for others. And that seems to work best. There are already a few people that are better at communicating these ideas than I am.”—Curt
-
Communication, Argument, and Proof
—“Communication, Argument, and Proof are different things unfortunately. I don’t really communicate. I construct arguments and proofs. My “managers” tell me to do that, and leave communication of it for others. And that seems to work best. There are already a few people that are better at communicating these ideas than I am.”—Curt
-
Video Notes: On The Future of Religion by Harari
“There is a huge gap between liberalism and the life sciences.”-Yuval Harari https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6BK5Q_Dblo [T]HOUGHTS: 1) Any entity with which we can cooperate need only observe the principle of non-imposition of costs either directly or through externality, which we institutionalize as property rights. Whether mechanical or biological, natural life or artificial life, cooperation is dependent upon this single principle. 2) It is certainly true that by analogy the human organism consists of processes that calculate the perpetuation of the organism. that does not influence the principle of cooperation – non-imposition – whatsoever. 3) Because both evolutionary necessity and the desire to cooperate rather then engage in murder, harm, theft, fraud, free riding, conspiracy, enslavement, conversion, invasion, and war – provide *decidability* by the the same principle of cooperation: the non-imposition of cost. 4) since we compete and there is no evidence that we will not, then any technological innovation will merely increase the rate of our competition with one another for status, and continue to increase our differences. 5) The reason liberalism, consumerism, and technological innovation have such influence over our lives is our wealth generated under consumer capitalism. But in a world where few of us are productive, most of us live in dependence, and a minority (Pareto’s 20%) produce and organize production, that means a great number of people must seek status (mating) by means of non-productive signaling. The uncomfortable option of large numbers of young men is one the world has encountered many times in the past, and is the source of all revolutions. 6) There is very little reason to develop a computer that thinks like us, because we are in a constant battle between pre-property individuals who acquire regardless of cost to others, and cooperating members of a group who do not. And the need to preserve ‘cheaters’ in order to preserve both the moral intuition to cooperate and the moral intuition to punish cheaters. If we can empathize with cheaters we can then cheat. To identify cheaters we must be able to empathize with them. If we were to build a machine with the same method of thinking of man, then it would also, like HAL’s lie, know how to cheat. For this reason the most valuable computers are those that think only with acquisition, property, and voluntary exchange, and like title registries, cannot violate property. 7) As far as we know, Patriarchy arose with property, when the value of male’s productivity allowed him to control female’s sex affection and reproduction . Females evolved as the property of bands of related males who preyed upon competing males to obtain their females, just as males humans prey(ed) upon competing male’s sheep, goat, cattle, and land. Females evolved gossip to rally and shame males into constraining alphas. 8) Socialism and Communism are based upon PSEUDOSCIENCE, not rationality. Rationality is weaker than myth over multiple generations. All major religions are supported by rational argument. It is dependent upon superstitious mythology not pseudoscience. Religions function as a means of limiting the government (nobility), and limiting men and women in the society. (Harari misrepresents natural law for what I assume are cultural reasons of interpretation.) The basis of western civilization is natural law of necessity for peaceful cooperation. That is quite different from dependent upon natural order. Laws of Nature(pseudoscience) are different from Natural Law(science), just as Rule by Law(command) is different from Rule of Law(limits on lawmaking). These are precise and technical terms that are abused in the public discourse. 9) Matriarchal societies constrain inheritance of property to the female line, but as far as we (I) know, they are always ruled by headmen. 10) Harari tried but he carries his cultural bias by demonstrating asymmetric criticism and praise. But we all do and none of us can escape it. I am as biased by my anglo aristocratic heritage as Kant and Heidegger are by theirs, and Marx and Harari are by theirs. This is due in no small part to the challenge of eliminating dependence for meaning and decidability upon introspective judgement. Harari is advocating universalism of cosmopolitanism (the Jewish enlightenment) just as surely as every single German advocates the German enlightenment, americans advocate Jeffersonian Contractualism. And there are some of us trying desperately trying to transcend the failures of the anglo, french, german, and ashkenazi enlightenments – all of which are simply restatements of their local group evolutionary strategy in universalist terms, by merely secular restatement their mythos. Hence my emphasis on the only universal rule: not how can we cooperate best, but why should we cooperate at all, if predation is preferable? The fist question of ethics is “Why don’t I kill you and take your territory, women and things?” All other positions are deceptive attempts to reason by fraud. And that is just how it is. And that is what separates the west from the rest: we invented ‘truth’ by which we mean ‘scientific objective truth’, testimony regardless of how we feel about it. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine