Curt Doolittle

Theme: Decidability

  • LITERATURE AND MEANING VS TRUTH AND DECIDABILITY Statements are not arguments. A

    LITERATURE AND MEANING VS TRUTH AND DECIDABILITY

    Statements are not arguments.

    And literary arguments are of necessity false.

    Santa Clause will in fact make you happy – as a child.

    The Iliad and Odyssey will educate you.

    The arthurian legends and the Lord of the Rings inspire you.

    But Achilles, Arthur, and Aragorn and all the saints,

    Have far less power than truth, testimony, natural law, and physical science.

    Only truth is persuasive, everything else is but informative.

    Myth for the children who must learn.

    Religion for the weak, dim, and hopeless who must labor.

    Literature for the able who must organize.

    Science for the self directed who must calculate.

    Truth, Law, History, Economics for the wise who must decide.

    Fairy Tale ethics for child who must learn.

    Virtue ethics for the young adult who must follow.

    Rational ethics for the adult who must act.

    Outcome ethics for the leaders who must calculate.

    Science for the wise who must decide.

    The bible ‘works’ because its central tents are:

    You can ignore the secular, your peers, and others.

    You can do what you can with what you have.

    You will be reasonably happy if you do so.

    Because with love, acceptance of fate, and not stealing from others, you will be of no burden to them, no threat to them, and can survive generation to generation insulated from the storms of man.

    But the bible only survives because the warriors decide,

    Because the financiers calculate

    Because the burghers organize.

    And the clerks coordinate and measure.

    And the labor acts accordingly.

    The west is polytheistic and always has been.

    We have a literature for every class.

    We have a history for every class.

    We have a role for every class.

    But the wise decide.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-03-29 02:58:00 UTC

  • if it can’t be compared between states it can’t be decidable. in other words it’

    if it can’t be compared between states it can’t be decidable. in other words it’s meaningless. The general idea = “I don’t know”.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-03-24 13:49:01 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/712999663947882496

    Reply addressees: @wjfrisby

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/712997575645904897

    IN REPLY TO:

    @wjfrisby

    @curtdoolittle The fact that one can be quantified more precisely doesn’t refute the general idea, though, surely?

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/712997575645904897

  • Testimony vs Literature Truth vs Experience Criticism vs Free Association Surviv

    Testimony vs Literature

    Truth vs Experience

    Criticism vs Free Association

    Survival vs Creativity

    Deflationary vs Conflationary

    Clarify vs Obscure

    Persuasion vs Suggestion

    Decidability vs Opportunity

    Decrease Cost vs Increase Cost

    Save vs Spend

    Action vs Consumption

    Production vs Entertainment

    Science vs Art

    What is the difference between an action novel and a philosophical treatise? You are carried into the plot, vs the plot is carried into you.

    But they are both literature.

    That is all.

    A recipe is different from a work of literature.

    Science(Testimony) consists of the methods by which we create recipes and name them. Literature the methods by which we create experiences.

    Communication, like violence, is a resource put to good or ill.

    Whether we create fully informed, productive, warrantied voluntary exchanges free of externalities – meaning moral communication – or whether we create suggestion, unproductive or harmful, unwarranted, involuntary transfers full of externalities – meaning immoral communication.

    And the fact remains that it is very difficult to communicate immorally with recipes, it is very easy to communicate immorally with literature.

    Yet given that experience is our native language – one which evolved prior to reason – pedagogy is often best performed with loaded, framed, and repeated (overloaded) analogy.

    There is a place for truth.

    There is a place for pedagogy.

    There is a place for creativity

    The question we must ask of some philosophers is whether there is a place for immoral suggestion rather than moral communication.

    And whether they transfer by moral or immoral means, immoral or moral ends.

    The philosophy of the west is natural law, common law, testimony, jury, universal standing and rule of law (universal applicability). Science is the art of improving one’s testimony.

    Everything else is merely literature.

    The question is whether that literature conveys moral or immoral content, and does so morally or immorally.

    And from that perspective, philosophers have a very checkered past.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-03-24 01:13:00 UTC

  • People follow incentives given the information at their disposal. The problem fo

    People follow incentives given the information at their disposal.

    The problem for all people when faced with sensory instrumentation insufficient to provide them with decidability in maters of complexity at hand, they rely purely on incentives.

    In the case of politicians they follow the incentives we have given them.

    Monopoly (majoritarian) democracy is a fine means of choosing the commons to purchase given the scarcity of resources for people with homogenous interests.

    When people have heterogeneous interests, or when they are outright competitors, and especially if they have become enemies, then monopoly (majority) rule is merely a proxy for warfare, rather than a means of choosing commons.

    The solution for people with dissimilar interests (classes and genders) who are competitors (Religions and races), or who are outright enemies (urban low opportunity cost, vs rural high opportunity cost), and who NEED customized social orders in order to compete (different median IQ/impulsivity/aggression), is to create a market for commons for the exchange of commons – OR – to secede so that they can conduct these exchanges using politicians between states as ‘trade policy’. (How Europe did).

    The enlightenment visions of man were wrong. The Anglo experiment of an aristocracy of everyone has been a demonstrated failure – because meritocracy is against the interests of the majority.

    People (empirically) do not vote for policy, they vote for the ‘generals’ that reflect their reproductive strategy: gender, creed, race, clan. (sorry, that’s just how it is.)

    We are not seeing a conflict. We are seeing the results and end of a century of experimentation with the wealth effect of selling off the Louisiana purchase and the westward expansion to immigrants during a period of european civil war. That temporary luxury was assumed to result in an infinite growth – linear intergenerational expansion. We replaced a benevolent god with the theory of infinite productivity expansion.

    Meanwhile, in 1963, the left, understanding that they could not achieve conquest through persuasion, adopted the Russian method of conquering territories by exporting Russians to eastern Europe, and instead immigrated third worlders to the united states in an attempt to destabilize the high trust society and create demand for the socialist state.

    These experiments have ended along with western economic and military superiority.

    So no. This isn’t a difference of opinion any longer.

    Welcome to the start of civil war.

    But unlike other nations who lack our traditions, anglos have a long history of settling civil wars through return of rights to the middle class.

    It’s common to say that america has the oldest government in the west. But this is not really true. We simply have this thing called the english common law, a majority germanic people, and a tradition of using that law to come to compromise.

    I am no longer confident this is a solvable problem.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-03-22 14:17:00 UTC

  • Politicians Follow the Incentives We Give Them Using Information They Possess

    [P]eople follow incentives given the information at their disposal.
     
    The problem for all people when faced with sensory instrumentation insufficient to provide them with decidability in maters of complexity at hand, they rely purely on incentives.
     
    In the case of politicians they follow the incentives we have given them.
     
    Monopoly (majoritarian) democracy is a fine means of choosing the commons to purchase given the scarcity of resources for people with homogenous interests.
     
    When people have heterogeneous interests, or when they are outright competitors, and especially if they have become enemies, then monopoly (majority) rule is merely a proxy for warfare, rather than a means of choosing commons.
     
    The solution for people with dissimilar interests (classes and genders) who are competitors (Religions and races), or who are outright enemies (urban low opportunity cost, vs rural high opportunity cost), and who NEED customized social orders in order to compete (different median IQ/impulsivity/aggression), is to create a market for commons for the exchange of commons – OR – to secede so that they can conduct these exchanges using politicians between states as ‘trade policy’. (How Europe did).
     
    The enlightenment visions of man were wrong. The Anglo experiment of an aristocracy of everyone has been a demonstrated failure – because meritocracy is against the interests of the majority.
     
    People (empirically) do not vote for policy, they vote for the ‘generals’ that reflect their reproductive strategy: gender, creed, race, clan. (sorry, that’s just how it is.)
     
    We are not seeing a conflict. We are seeing the results and end of a century of experimentation with the wealth effect of selling off the Louisiana purchase and the westward expansion to immigrants during a period of european civil war. That temporary luxury was assumed to result in an infinite growth – linear intergenerational expansion. We replaced a benevolent god with the theory of infinite productivity expansion.
     
    Meanwhile, in 1963, the left, understanding that they could not achieve conquest through persuasion, adopted the Russian method of conquering territories by exporting Russians to eastern Europe, and instead immigrated third worlders to the united states in an attempt to destabilize the high trust society and create demand for the socialist state.
     
    These experiments have ended along with western economic and military superiority.
     
    So no. This isn’t a difference of opinion any longer.
     
    Welcome to the start of civil war.
     
    But unlike other nations who lack our traditions, anglos have a long history of settling civil wars through return of rights to the middle class.
     
    It’s common to say that america has the oldest government in the west. But this is not really true. We simply have this thing called the english common law, a majority germanic people, and a tradition of using that law to come to compromise.
     
    I am no longer confident this is a solvable problem.

  • Politicians Follow the Incentives We Give Them Using Information They Possess

    [P]eople follow incentives given the information at their disposal.
     
    The problem for all people when faced with sensory instrumentation insufficient to provide them with decidability in maters of complexity at hand, they rely purely on incentives.
     
    In the case of politicians they follow the incentives we have given them.
     
    Monopoly (majoritarian) democracy is a fine means of choosing the commons to purchase given the scarcity of resources for people with homogenous interests.
     
    When people have heterogeneous interests, or when they are outright competitors, and especially if they have become enemies, then monopoly (majority) rule is merely a proxy for warfare, rather than a means of choosing commons.
     
    The solution for people with dissimilar interests (classes and genders) who are competitors (Religions and races), or who are outright enemies (urban low opportunity cost, vs rural high opportunity cost), and who NEED customized social orders in order to compete (different median IQ/impulsivity/aggression), is to create a market for commons for the exchange of commons – OR – to secede so that they can conduct these exchanges using politicians between states as ‘trade policy’. (How Europe did).
     
    The enlightenment visions of man were wrong. The Anglo experiment of an aristocracy of everyone has been a demonstrated failure – because meritocracy is against the interests of the majority.
     
    People (empirically) do not vote for policy, they vote for the ‘generals’ that reflect their reproductive strategy: gender, creed, race, clan. (sorry, that’s just how it is.)
     
    We are not seeing a conflict. We are seeing the results and end of a century of experimentation with the wealth effect of selling off the Louisiana purchase and the westward expansion to immigrants during a period of european civil war. That temporary luxury was assumed to result in an infinite growth – linear intergenerational expansion. We replaced a benevolent god with the theory of infinite productivity expansion.
     
    Meanwhile, in 1963, the left, understanding that they could not achieve conquest through persuasion, adopted the Russian method of conquering territories by exporting Russians to eastern Europe, and instead immigrated third worlders to the united states in an attempt to destabilize the high trust society and create demand for the socialist state.
     
    These experiments have ended along with western economic and military superiority.
     
    So no. This isn’t a difference of opinion any longer.
     
    Welcome to the start of civil war.
     
    But unlike other nations who lack our traditions, anglos have a long history of settling civil wars through return of rights to the middle class.
     
    It’s common to say that america has the oldest government in the west. But this is not really true. We simply have this thing called the english common law, a majority germanic people, and a tradition of using that law to come to compromise.
     
    I am no longer confident this is a solvable problem.

  • How Would A Pure Communist State Look Like?

    It would look like a unicorn, a fairy tale, or a dystopian science fiction novel.

    Communism is impossible for two related reasons: inability to calculate anything economic, and lack of availability of incentives.  Communism is a farm for free ridership.

    https://www.quora.com/How-would-a-pure-communist-state-look-like

  • How Would A Pure Communist State Look Like?

    It would look like a unicorn, a fairy tale, or a dystopian science fiction novel.

    Communism is impossible for two related reasons: inability to calculate anything economic, and lack of availability of incentives.  Communism is a farm for free ridership.

    https://www.quora.com/How-would-a-pure-communist-state-look-like

  • THE PURPOSE OF RELIGION? Religion like creativity, provides a group evolutionary

    THE PURPOSE OF RELIGION?

    Religion like creativity, provides a group evolutionary strategy, loosely constructed in myth and literature. It creates decidability in matters of collective ambition.

    Morality like creativity provides general rules of behavior, loosely constructed as shoulds and should nots. Morals, ethics, manners.

    Law like science provides the negative: That which we may not do, because it impedes our group evolutionary strategy. It creates decidability in matters of interpersonal dispute.

    KNOWLEDGE PROCESS

    Observation > Free Association > Hypothesis > Theory > Physical Law

    GROUP STRATEGY PROCESS

    Competition > Strategy > Religion > Morality > Judicial Law

    That’s probably profound – at least for most people.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-03-13 09:42:00 UTC

  • If law is logically constructed, the polycentrism equates to polylogism. Instead

    If law is logically constructed, the polycentrism equates to polylogism. Instead, non-parasitism, mono-logism, and polycentric discovery.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-03-12 15:10:54 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/708671616830595073