Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • Owen Flanagan’s Test of A Philosophical Psychology


    [A] philosophical psychology ought to answer questions such as these:

    • What, if anything, are humans like deep down inside beneath the clothes of culture?

    • What, if any, features of mind-world interaction, and thus of the human predicament, are universal?

    • Is there any end state or goal(s) that all humans seek because they are wired to seek it (or them), or what is different, ought to seek because it is—or, they are—worthy?

    • If there is a common natural orientation toward some end state(s), for example, pleasure, friendship, community, truth, beauty, goodness, intellectual contemplation, are these ends mutually consistent? If not, must one choose a single dominant end? Does our nature not only provide the end(s), but also a way of ordering and prioritizing them, as well as a preferred ratio among them that produces some sort of equilibrium?

    • How conducive is following our nature to actually producing what we naturally seek, or what is different, sensibly ought to seek? Could it be that not everything we seek—not even pleasant experiences or truth—is good for us?

    • What is the relation between our first nature, our given human nature, and our second nature, our cultured nature?

    • Does first nature continue in contemporary worlds, in new ecologies, to achieve its original ends? If so, is first nature also well suited to achieving new, culturally discovered, or what is different, created ends

    • Is second nature constructed precisely for the achievement of variable, culturally discovered or created ends that first nature is ill-equipped to achieve?

    • Do different societies construct/develop second nature in order to enhance first nature and/or to moderate and modify, possibly to eliminate, certain seeds in our first nature that can work against that very (first) nature and/or against our second nature and our cultured ends, which our second nature is intended to help us achieve?

    Errors in these questions of the city state or class:

    • The Problem Of Universalism: One Ness vs Individual, Family, tribe, race and corporation.(Doolittle) Which is reducible to a hierarchy of desires (needs). And they cannot be equally met.

    Eudemonia (Aristotle)


  • Don’t Confuse Cheating On Your Normative Taxes With Tolerance And Love.

    [I]t is irrelevant what you think of other cultures, and the people in them – unless they ignore you, it is only relevant what they think of you. Thinking is no counter to competition. It is merely self-congratulatory discounting to confuse conviction with convenience, and tolerance with letting the boat sink because bailing is someone else’s job.

    Tolerance and submission are no more intrinsic goods than violence and domination. The question is only whether one is suppressing parasitism and forcing each other into the market, or one is permitting parasitism and allowing others to escape the transformationary struggle to enter the market.

    So before you congratulate yourself on your tolerance and morality you must determine if you are expanding parasitism or suppressing it.

    Curt Doolittle ( All – This is the propertarian analysis of the problem – the only answer is what we will obtain in exchange. The only viable material anotehr has to exchange is his adoption of norms and higher trust so that he does not increase transaction costs.)

  • Don’t Confuse Cheating On Your Normative Taxes With Tolerance And Love.

    [I]t is irrelevant what you think of other cultures, and the people in them – unless they ignore you, it is only relevant what they think of you. Thinking is no counter to competition. It is merely self-congratulatory discounting to confuse conviction with convenience, and tolerance with letting the boat sink because bailing is someone else’s job.

    Tolerance and submission are no more intrinsic goods than violence and domination. The question is only whether one is suppressing parasitism and forcing each other into the market, or one is permitting parasitism and allowing others to escape the transformationary struggle to enter the market.

    So before you congratulate yourself on your tolerance and morality you must determine if you are expanding parasitism or suppressing it.

    Curt Doolittle ( All – This is the propertarian analysis of the problem – the only answer is what we will obtain in exchange. The only viable material anotehr has to exchange is his adoption of norms and higher trust so that he does not increase transaction costs.)

  • Q: Curt, Would You Consider Yourself A Continental Philosopher?

    QUESTION:  “Curt, Would you consider yourself a continental philosopher?”

    ANSWER:  

    [N]o. Propertarianism is an analytic argument based upon empirical evidence independent of and explicitly contrary to, if not hostile to, continental rationalism. 

    Continental philosophers reject natural science as the exclusive means of knowledge, whereas, I argue a sort of synthesis, where the methodology of science is merely what is necessary for us to speak the truth about what we sense, perceive, and reason – not any particular vehicle for obtaining knowledge.

    Then I demonstrate, fairly frequently, that rationalism without these tests of truth-telling, has proved to be a vehicle for lies, deceptions and frauds – Marx, Freud, Cantor, Russell, the Frankfurt School, Mises’ failure at producing praxeology, Rothbard’s immoral libertinism, and dozens more.

    So the struggle to tell the truth, rather than the assumption that there is a superior means of knowledge to merely struggling to tell the truth, is what separates Propertarianism, (which includes operationalism and testimonial truth) from Praxeology.  With Propertarianism we can achieve what Praxeology promised, but we do so not by depending upon rationalism which is an exceptionally good vehicle for error and deception, but by relying upon making observations of phenomenon, attempting to construct them operationally (praxeologically), and speaking truthfully about what we have done.

    I am in the camp of thinkers that suggests Kant was with Zoroaster and Abraham in constructing one of the worst sets of ideas in history – and the continent has absorbed it.  The evolution of complex lies: Zoroaster->Abraham->Kant->Marx->Postmoderns had only physical science, and the strong, as competitors to contain them. I have tried to make it nearly impossible to construct such rational deceptions and errors, and I think succeeded.

    Now, just to flip it around, the Analytic tradition in English speaking countries has spent a century of wasted effort attempting to construct a science of itself. And it was a complete failure. They were trying to use language to determine truth, but this isn’t possible – and some of them know it finally.

    Propertarianism and operationalism and testimonial truth take the opposite approach – we must demonstrate, describe, only what is extant – because that is the only information that can be known to exist – and as such not constitute justification, deception, imagination, projection. The purpose is to make sure we speak the truth – that we DO NO HARM.

    Why? Because it turns out that rationalism can be used as the most successful form of lying and human misery since the invention of scriptural monotheism. IN that sense, Continental rationalism is just christianity 3.0 – mysticism in secular obscurant language.

    Curt Doolittle,
    The Philosophy of Aristocracy
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev Ukraine

  • Q: Curt, Would You Consider Yourself A Continental Philosopher?

    QUESTION:  “Curt, Would you consider yourself a continental philosopher?”

    ANSWER:  

    [N]o. Propertarianism is an analytic argument based upon empirical evidence independent of and explicitly contrary to, if not hostile to, continental rationalism. 

    Continental philosophers reject natural science as the exclusive means of knowledge, whereas, I argue a sort of synthesis, where the methodology of science is merely what is necessary for us to speak the truth about what we sense, perceive, and reason – not any particular vehicle for obtaining knowledge.

    Then I demonstrate, fairly frequently, that rationalism without these tests of truth-telling, has proved to be a vehicle for lies, deceptions and frauds – Marx, Freud, Cantor, Russell, the Frankfurt School, Mises’ failure at producing praxeology, Rothbard’s immoral libertinism, and dozens more.

    So the struggle to tell the truth, rather than the assumption that there is a superior means of knowledge to merely struggling to tell the truth, is what separates Propertarianism, (which includes operationalism and testimonial truth) from Praxeology.  With Propertarianism we can achieve what Praxeology promised, but we do so not by depending upon rationalism which is an exceptionally good vehicle for error and deception, but by relying upon making observations of phenomenon, attempting to construct them operationally (praxeologically), and speaking truthfully about what we have done.

    I am in the camp of thinkers that suggests Kant was with Zoroaster and Abraham in constructing one of the worst sets of ideas in history – and the continent has absorbed it.  The evolution of complex lies: Zoroaster->Abraham->Kant->Marx->Postmoderns had only physical science, and the strong, as competitors to contain them. I have tried to make it nearly impossible to construct such rational deceptions and errors, and I think succeeded.

    Now, just to flip it around, the Analytic tradition in English speaking countries has spent a century of wasted effort attempting to construct a science of itself. And it was a complete failure. They were trying to use language to determine truth, but this isn’t possible – and some of them know it finally.

    Propertarianism and operationalism and testimonial truth take the opposite approach – we must demonstrate, describe, only what is extant – because that is the only information that can be known to exist – and as such not constitute justification, deception, imagination, projection. The purpose is to make sure we speak the truth – that we DO NO HARM.

    Why? Because it turns out that rationalism can be used as the most successful form of lying and human misery since the invention of scriptural monotheism. IN that sense, Continental rationalism is just christianity 3.0 – mysticism in secular obscurant language.

    Curt Doolittle,
    The Philosophy of Aristocracy
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev Ukraine

  • Consumer Capitalism? Or Is It Consumer Credit-Ism?


    [W]hy do we refer to our voluntary organization of production as Capitalism when that era ended at least half a century ago –  and call it Consumer Cedit-ism instead.

    Ukrainians are poor because they lack credit. Capitalism is a different social class problem altogether. And by historical standards we don’t really have any capitalists any longer – only people with enough trust to accumulate a lot if credit.  Our rich aren’t really rich enough to do much of anything other than try desperately to stay rich against all odds.

    In the 18th and 19th century, It was easy to amass a little capital and produce consumer goods.

    It was a lot harder to distribute consumer credit to all.  

    Consumer Credit-ism is how we operate our society – capitalism died with the end of the conversion of people from the farm.


  • Consumer Capitalism? Or Is It Consumer Credit-Ism?


    [W]hy do we refer to our voluntary organization of production as Capitalism when that era ended at least half a century ago –  and call it Consumer Cedit-ism instead.

    Ukrainians are poor because they lack credit. Capitalism is a different social class problem altogether. And by historical standards we don’t really have any capitalists any longer – only people with enough trust to accumulate a lot if credit.  Our rich aren’t really rich enough to do much of anything other than try desperately to stay rich against all odds.

    In the 18th and 19th century, It was easy to amass a little capital and produce consumer goods.

    It was a lot harder to distribute consumer credit to all.  

    Consumer Credit-ism is how we operate our society – capitalism died with the end of the conversion of people from the farm.


  • Methodological Ternary-ism: Physical Instrumentation, Logical Instrumentation, Social Instrumentation

    [T]ruth. This word can be translated as the “mind of God”. Because this word is used as if referring to the mind of God. But, this use is a deception in and of itself. There exists no mind to discover, and no truth to discover: it isn’t hidden. The universe lies bare for us all to see.

    So it’s not that anything is hidden from us to uncover. Instead, we lack the senses to see it, and we lack the mind to comprehend without some means of reducing it to analogy to experience that we can sense and perceive. So, the problem we face, is not one of knowing the Truth – the mind of God – as if we seek to know the mind of one another. The problem we face is in compensating for the frailty of our senses, perception, reason by the construction of instruments. We construct three forms of instruments. 1- Physical Instrumentation (the instruments) 2- Logical Instrumentation (the logics and methods) 3- Social Instrumentation (institutional) And of three, the third is most important, since it is the hardest to develop and control, because the incentives of individuals are contrary to the production of instrumental measurements. We – all of us – constitute the third form of instrument – the division of calculation across individuals. And our only means of producing accurate measures and calculations upon them is to require truthful testimony from one another. But your take away from this short bit of prose, is that westerners engaged in methodological ternary-ism*, not methodological dualism. And we didn’t even know that was our art. I think this problem is now one I can consider solved. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy Kiev Ukraine — *Note: I mean ‘consisting of three’ and nothing more. I wanted to use the extant term “trinitarianism”, but it’s too loaded for practical use.

  • Methodological Ternary-ism: Physical Instrumentation, Logical Instrumentation, Social Instrumentation

    [T]ruth. This word can be translated as the “mind of God”. Because this word is used as if referring to the mind of God. But, this use is a deception in and of itself. There exists no mind to discover, and no truth to discover: it isn’t hidden. The universe lies bare for us all to see.

    So it’s not that anything is hidden from us to uncover. Instead, we lack the senses to see it, and we lack the mind to comprehend without some means of reducing it to analogy to experience that we can sense and perceive. So, the problem we face, is not one of knowing the Truth – the mind of God – as if we seek to know the mind of one another. The problem we face is in compensating for the frailty of our senses, perception, reason by the construction of instruments. We construct three forms of instruments. 1- Physical Instrumentation (the instruments) 2- Logical Instrumentation (the logics and methods) 3- Social Instrumentation (institutional) And of three, the third is most important, since it is the hardest to develop and control, because the incentives of individuals are contrary to the production of instrumental measurements. We – all of us – constitute the third form of instrument – the division of calculation across individuals. And our only means of producing accurate measures and calculations upon them is to require truthful testimony from one another. But your take away from this short bit of prose, is that westerners engaged in methodological ternary-ism*, not methodological dualism. And we didn’t even know that was our art. I think this problem is now one I can consider solved. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy Kiev Ukraine — *Note: I mean ‘consisting of three’ and nothing more. I wanted to use the extant term “trinitarianism”, but it’s too loaded for practical use.

  • The Spectrum of Terms for Impulsivity

    [P]reference is a choice. Demonstrated time preference (useful for the economic concept of interest but not scientific in that it’s causally descriptive) appears to be largely genetic, and is determined by what we consider the ‘frustration budget’:our ability to suppress the urge for gratification.

    So the terms, Impulsivity, frustration budget (tolerance), and time preference represent three portions of the impulsivity spectrum. Where the lower our impulsivity, the higher our tolerance for frustration, and the greater our willingness to persist a desire for a long term goal, each represent our social classes.

    As such to discuss time preference outside of the impulsively scale is to attribute to choice that which is no more available to choice than rational thought is to the solipsist, empathy is to the autistic, or operational calculation using abstract rules of deduction is to the imbecile.

    The language of libertinism is rife with upper middle class economic loading and framing: attributing to choice that which is not, in order to perpetuate the fallacy that liberty is a rational preference and choice, rather than the reproductive strategy of an elite minority and the social outcasts that follow them in hopes of status seeking. Instead, science: empiricism, instrumentalism, operationalism and performative truth attempts to explain all phenomenon in least loaded and framed (if not least obscurant) terms.

    It is for this reason that the language of science is the language of the spoken and written truth, and rationalism must always be suspect, because the majority of outright lies, pseudo-rationalism and pseudoscience have been told in rational language.

    So while rationalists say that something is possible or may be possible, science merely demonstrates that rationalism is de facto the optimum means of lying invented by man.

    And the 20th century as Hayek proposed, was merely the high point of cosmopolitan pseudoscience, precisely because those with lesser abilities relied upon rationalism rather than science. And they did so because it was profitable to lie: see various quotes by and about Marx and Keynes.

    Praxeology can be repaired: by restating it as operationalism and testimonial truth. Mises merely failed in his attempt. Because he relied upon rationalism rather than science. And very likely, as did popper, and the rest of the cosmopolitans, because it allowed him to justify preconceptions rather than to discover uncomfortable truths: that the cosmopolitan way of life was systemically immoral, and that western universalism cannot be use as an attempt to preserve separatism.