Curt Doolittle

Theme: Deception

  • THE NEXT PROBLEM TO SOLVE: the habituation of untruthful speech. I think I may y

    THE NEXT PROBLEM TO SOLVE: the habituation of untruthful speech.

    I think I may yet find research value in Internet debate. Because I have experimented with the assumption that I cannot determine whether an individual is dishonest or not, rather than whether we can get away with a statement, but I am still struggling with it.

    How do I change the structure of argument so that the presumption is one of deception and error rather than one of error ant the possibility of truth? How do I raise the requirement for moral speech such that immoral speech is not possible.?

    The vulnerability in modern discourse is that it relies on western medieval assumptions that both parties are honest or at least honest even if they are vectors for lies.

    We evolved debate by putting away our weapons and our status during the debate. Under the assumption once we exited the debate a dishonest man might be killed.

    Meaning: He must warranty his words with his life.

    We slowly converted this behavior into a softer norm. But the duel persisted until recently – and it appears to have had severe consequences.

    The cosmopolitans and the Germans revoked this constraint.

    And the cosmopolitan virus of deception was successful only because of it : we retain the softer norm, but eliminated the warranty.

    The cosmopolitans violate the softer norm with impunity. And the consequence is the loss of the norm of truth telling that we developed over more than 5,000 years.

    This was only possible because we valued the technical knowledge distributed by printing so highly that we have speech a little license.

    Then when the new cheaper media hit, it was no longer possible for an individual to hold a speaker accountable for his words.

    They then user new media to saturate – overload – us with lies.

    Thus turning out altruism and trust from a strength to a vulnerability.

    How do I conduct arguments that force the other to speak truthfully without exiting argument and applying violence?

    How do we restore truth telling unless by treating the normative commons as paid-in capital? (Which it is.)

    I will have to call a lot of people liars to figure that out.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-11 04:21:00 UTC

  • 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.

  • ANALYTIC TRUTH Truth. This word can be translated as the mind of God. Because th

    ANALYTIC TRUTH

    Truth.

    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 is a deception in and of itself. There exists no truth to discover: it isn’t hidden. The universe lies bare for us all to see.

    We lack the senses to see it, and we lack the mind to comprehend it.

    The problem the 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 and reason by the construction of instruments:

    1- mechanical

    2- logical

    3- social (institutional)

    And of the tree, 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

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-08 10:45:00 UTC

  • THE OATH OF ONE Pseudoscientific Democratic Humanism and Islamism are equal part

    THE OATH OF ONE

    Pseudoscientific Democratic Humanism and Islamism are equal parts tyranny. Both are predicated upon lies. Both rely upon a priesthood in equally ideological academies, preaching the same content with different myths.

    There is only one source of liberty: Aristocratic Egalitarianism. And there never will exist any other.

    THE OATH OF ONE

    There is but one source of liberty: The Militia;

    One institution for sustaining it: The Law;

    One rule for deciding it: Property;

    One ritual for observing it: Speaking the truth;

    One promise for fulfilling it: Punish the wicked.

    One person required to act upon it: Me.

    One method of acting upon it: violence.

    One one oath to be made: “I accept it.”

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-07 06:07:00 UTC

  • WHY? You approval can be mere lie. Your consent can be withdrawn. Your submissio

    WHY?

    You approval can be mere lie.

    Your consent can be withdrawn.

    Your submission can be escaped.

    But your defeat cannot be unmade.

    It is forever visible for all to see.

    We don’t, I don’t, seek your approval,

    your consent, or your submission.

    We seek, I seek, your defeat.

    And we will, I will, once committed,

    never stop, ever, until you are defeated completely.

    And the truth alone is sufficient weapon to defeat you.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-06 13:25:00 UTC

  • PUTIN IS CRITICIZING THE CATHEDRAL – HOW DO WE LEVERAGE THAT? I wonder if there

    PUTIN IS CRITICIZING THE CATHEDRAL – HOW DO WE LEVERAGE THAT?

    I wonder if there is any value in getting Putin to just use the term ‘The Cathedral’ as ridicule a few times – demonstrating the dominance of the ideological-and-failed-academic-church’s influence on the state rather than the pragmatic state’s influence on the academy’ such that it produces people who can succeed in the economy. The church has its place, but that is not the academy. And the academy has taken upon itself to replace the church.

    And it’s an evil religion that the academy teaches.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-05 04:01:00 UTC

  • THOUGHTS: ARE MEMBERS BIASED AGAINST THE ENTRY OF CONSERVATIVES; and second, is

    http://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/social-psychology-biased-republicansTHREE THOUGHTS: ARE MEMBERS BIASED AGAINST THE ENTRY OF CONSERVATIVES; and second, is there a bias toward support of left conclusions in research by those members; and third, are members with a bias drawn to the discipline of psychology?

    It’s a specialization. The military is a specialization.

    Psychology, if not for its complete abandonment of freudianism, and adoption of Operationism would have perished as a pseudoscience, as has social science, if it had not reformed. As it has reformed, it has moved more to the center. In practical terms Haidt appears to function as a classical liberal libertarian today (not a libertine libertarian), despite his left sentiments.

    But its merely a specialization. If we took military strategy and tactics, and put it into the university system, instead of in the war colleges, you would see that most were conservative. (in fact that’s a pretty good idea).

    Moral biases lead us to specializations where we can exercise our moral biases.

    As I became self aware, I realized that I write the particular brand of philosophy I do because my highest moral priority is conflict prevention. I am very, very good at conflict, but that is partly because I dislike it so much, that I want it to end.

    It so happens that in order to write something reasonably scientific about the subject of philosophy – particularly ethics and politics – that my cognitive bias is terribly useful. Because law is the philosophy of conflict resolution.

    So its logical that psychology will move to left of center, as the scientific evidence forces center bias, while the people drawn to the subject continue to demonstrate left bias.

    I am fairly sure that if we required operational speech in all disciplines we would see the same motion as we have in psychology: toward a reformation and drive back to the classical liberal center.

    But I doubt that we would change the preference for those with progressive (female reproductive strategy) bias to the field.

    My preference would be to teach War, Politics, Law, Economics, Finance, and Propertarian philosophy as a curriculum in all universities so that the Cathedral possessed internal competition. And it would restore male female balance to the Academy’s numbers of graduates.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-03 04:23:00 UTC

  • SELLING DYSGENIA FOR PROFIT You just prohibit lying, by requiring truthful speec

    SELLING DYSGENIA FOR PROFIT

    You just prohibit lying, by requiring truthful speech. We do not allow for fomenting a conspiracy, why should we allow for the fomenting of theft for the purpose of profiting from the sale of dysgenia? I man, that’s the left’s program right? Sell dysgenia for profit? SO, unwind it by merely replacing free speech with free truthful speech. One cannot bring a harmful product, physical, service, or speech, to market without warranty against the production of harm.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-02 16:11:00 UTC

  • THE CATHEDRAL’S DEMAND FOR RESPECT I am not sure why I should treat a coward, a

    THE CATHEDRAL’S DEMAND FOR RESPECT

    I am not sure why I should treat a coward, a liar and a thief with respect. Does anyone know the answer to that question? Because I certainly don’t.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-02 07:43:00 UTC