APPARENTLY TO BE CLASSIFIED AS A PHILOSOPHER YOU MUST MAKE YOUR IDEA ACCESSIBLE TO 5 YEAR OLDS
—“Curt is not a philosopher by any means. He cannot even understand his own Confusion in order to boil it down into a simple manner in which common folk can grasp it instantly. If you cannot explain your ideas to a 5 year old child without them understanding them logically – you fail to comprehend yet, you own thoughts and imaginations in order to be able to judge them with discernment and thus avoid making a fool of yourself…”—Nacherel Tav
This is a lie right?
Can you explain programming to a five year old?
The formal logics?
Arithmetic, Geometry, Calculus, analysis and algebra?
No you can’t.
When Propertarianism is indifferent from writing law in a formal logic in a formal syntax, just like programming, with a formal set of types,.
I can diagram all of it in about eight slides.
But it’s a university degree level discipline.
What you mean is I can’t produce an IDEOLOGY.
Do you understand Kant, or Heidegger, or Aristotle or even darwin? Well, P is slightly easier than each. Precisely because it is formal.
So if those men are philosophers then why am I not?
I think you’ve misunderstood the purpose of propertarianism (as I had for a long time, and as many do). Curt is attempting to codify in language the natural law (the law of empirical science) first and foremost. Secondly, he’s writing a constitution that aligns with his natural law. If people choose to attempt to vie for power and implement this, then they may. But Propertarianism’s point is not to rule, it’s to be truthful.
So, if your reputation is damaged by the TRUTH, then you have damaged your own property; which demonstrates foolishness, assuming the culture around you isn’t completely retarded. For instance, people like you and me Nicola already have a “reputation” among leftists as being “bigots” or whatever. We don’t care much because we know they’re idiots… but we care to the extent that it affects our prospects. So if you live in such a hypothetical society that equally values truth and your reputation is sullied by the truth of your actions being known, then nobody has imposed a cost upon you but you yourself. You can choose to continue in folly and let your reputation further diminish, or you can choose to repair and rebuild it through truthful action that the community smiles upon; thus engaging with the Christian practise of repentance and forgiveness, which is an ideal, and one that I wholly believe in.
Propertarianism’s practical goal is to enshrine truth into law, and to defend truth by punishing lies.
At no point have I suggested that violence is the only means by which people defend their reputation, nor is it often the appropriate means. Especially if your reputation is damaged by your own actions being know – getting violent won’t help at all. It would be completely irrational. You would be imposing a cost upon others.
But again, you’re leaping forward into a hypothetical propertarian society to make a case against what is essentially a philosophical principle. You don’t need propertarianism or a propertarian society to recognise the different between ideals and realities (oughts and ises).
We agree that people ought not use violence as the first choice in defence, but rather as a final recourse. That’s because we’re Christians. Many Muslims don’t agree or subscribe to this ideal, so they won’t care if we do. Moral arguments cower in the presence of actual violence. So just because we say “you ought not strike first” doesn’t mean others won’t strike first. The NAP is out the window when it’s not agreed to by the second party. You and I are only free to quibble about such things because a 3rd party (the state in this case) applies violence every day to ensure it. As the state begins to derelict its duty to violence, more onus falls upon us to engage with it directly (hence the breakdown of social cohesion and the requirement for preparation).
You keep inferring that I hunger for violence. I don’t. I hunger for justice (i.e. the victory of truth). When words fail, violence is the last recourse and gold standard by which justice is dealt (and that is and always has been the empirically reality of man – that’s what our current legal system is; systemised violence). It may not be ideal, but it’s real.
photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/53792641_10157048081242264_801758054998605824_o_10157048081232264.jpg I need to make one of these for deceitsI need to make one of these for deceits
photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/53708748_10157047939917264_259080033681801216_o_10157047939912264.jpg THE PERIODIC TABLE OF SPEECH
There are a few fundamental innovations in Propertarianism
1 – The Dimensional warranty of due diligence
2 – The Periodic Table of speech (Grammars)
3 – The Operational language and grammar in ePrime
4 – The Method of producing serialized Definitions (Disambiguation)
5 – Property in toto and the completion of the anarchic program in a reduction of social science to statements of changes in the state of ‘property’ (interests).
-update-
(correct link to pdf version:
https://propertarianism.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/periodic-table-of-speech-draft2.pdf )Jared NeavesNiceMar 14, 2019, 11:18 AMCurt DoolittleLINK AT THE BOTTOM.Mar 14, 2019, 11:21 AMJared NeavesCurt Doolittle 😂 🙊Mar 14, 2019, 11:21 AMVengefül BobmoranUm… can’t read it on the website.Mar 14, 2019, 11:31 AMJWarren Prescottcould you do it in pdf – png is not showing up. 🙂Mar 14, 2019, 11:33 AMScott SchroederThe portion of Propertarianism dealing with punishment for lies sounds a lot like my concept of political fraud. Political fraud is akin to economic fraud. In economic fraud, you lie for material gain. In political fraud, you lie for political gain. We can define political fraud as “Deliberate material misstatement of fact for political gain” and make it punishable both criminally and civilly.Mar 14, 2019, 11:37 AMMartin Štěpánhttps://i0.wp.com/propertarianism.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Screen-Shot-2019-03-14-at-10.57.27-AM.pngMar 14, 2019, 11:44 AMMartin Štěpánhttps://i0.wp.com/propertarianism.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Screen-Shot-2019-03-14-at-10.57.27-AM.pngMar 14, 2019, 11:45 AMBryan Nova BreyMassive undertaking and achievement! Is this why you were talking about “normalization of tables” a few days ago?
Would help if you could make a higher resolution screenshot. I zoom in and can read the headings only.Mar 14, 2019, 12:40 PMBryan Nova BreyI can zoom just a bit more than this.Mar 14, 2019, 12:41 PMCurt Doolittlelink at bottom of post to full size pdf – poster
yes as to why teach normalization.Mar 14, 2019, 12:50 PMBryan Nova BreyMartin Štěpán This one is higher resolution. Thanks!Mar 14, 2019, 12:54 PMMartin ŠtěpánBryan Nova Brey It’s just the one from the site without resize.Mar 14, 2019, 12:55 PMMartin ŠtěpánCurt DoolittleIt links to the site. There’s no pdf.Mar 14, 2019, 12:56 PMJames HolidayWow this is pretty amazing. You can use this to chart any argument and show the methods of argumentation and their truthfulness. Looks like a great tool for persuasion/argument as well as law
Is it all finished though? I see some question marks and empty boxes.Mar 14, 2019, 12:56 PMBryan Nova BreyMartin Štěpán I went to the site on mobile. I held down the image to save it. The version that I saved was not fully readable. Likely this is a mobile problem.Mar 14, 2019, 12:56 PMMartin ŠtěpánBryan Nova Brey You’ve saved the resized version.Mar 14, 2019, 12:57 PMBryan Nova BreyOn mobile, on the link provided in the OP there is no choice for image size (resolution) to download. Your link however goes directly to the full size, which I was able to download.Mar 14, 2019, 12:59 PMMartin ŠtěpánBryan Nova Brey Yes. I just deleted “?resize=768%2C492&ssl=1” from the url.Mar 14, 2019, 1:00 PMCurt Doolittleyep. its fking awesome.
um no, not finished. i would have to do more research and truthfully i’m not sure i need to. the point of the diagram is that like the elements, speech reflects the real world in predictable ways..Mar 14, 2019, 1:03 PMBryan Nova BreyMartin Štěpán Brilliant.
I don’t get the option to open in a new tab on mobile.Mar 14, 2019, 1:04 PMCurt Doolittlefixed. link at top of post on siteMar 14, 2019, 1:06 PMBryan Nova BreyThere were empty slots in the original periodic table. 🤓Mar 14, 2019, 1:11 PMCurt Doolittlesame reason here….Mar 14, 2019, 1:12 PMCurt Doolittlelink in op to pdfMar 14, 2019, 1:20 PMJWarren PrescottWow, much better…👍🏻Mar 14, 2019, 1:21 PMDanny VögelmeierBasically one needs to convince A that (1-A) needs to be deported.
That’s why the nazis were stressing german superiority. German descent was something everyone could easily verify (and which was compatible with a>0.5, i.e. democracy). It wasn’t strictly true. Those who know, know. Those who could know need to be thaught. A large part of A may need management rather than the truth.Mar 14, 2019, 1:29 PMJWarren PrescottCurt Doolittle – this is going to take awhile to absorb…thank you for your hard work and efforts.Mar 14, 2019, 1:30 PMCurt Doolittlethanks for appreciating those efforts.Mar 14, 2019, 1:33 PMScott Schroederhttps://www.facebook.com/ARIACWFAW/posts/664656660592463Mar 14, 2019, 3:40 PMCurt Doolittleexcept that its the warrior caste that invented and practiced reciprocity -and that the other classes had to also in order to be free as well. so it was not how classes consrains, but the law of the aristicracy imposed upon the other classes.Mar 14, 2019, 3:43 PMScott SchroederCurt Doolittle The warrior class and merchant class today are both COMPLETELY subservient to the modern priest class. The priest class rules through psychological operations. They couldn’t care less about what is true or fair. Every claim is evaluated on its political utility, not on whether it is consistent with reality. All heresy must be silenced. The truth is no defense.Mar 14, 2019, 3:51 PMCurt Doolittlethe point is reciprocity not nap.Mar 14, 2019, 3:51 PMScott SchroederCurt Doolittle You’re saying when the warrior class/aristocracy was in charge they used reciprocity, not NAP. OK. But they’re not in charge now. And the moral and legal constraints put on the merchant class and the warrior class today sure look a lot like NAP. No comparable restraint has been put on the modern priest class and it needs to be.Mar 14, 2019, 4:03 PMCurt DoolittleNo. NAP looks like another semitic (abrahamic, marxist, libertarian, postmodern) pretense to reciprocity and rule of law, that (a) does not require reciprocity be earned, (b) retains the semitic means of deceit by fraud by omission enabling blackmail, enabling conspiracy, (c) (d) continuing the semitic method of baiting well meaning fools into hazard thru piplup and deceit.
NAP is to Reciprocity as Labor Theory of Value is to Subjective Value, and as money proper is to money substitutes – it’s another fraud.
Other things may look like reciprocity. But they are not. They are all substitutes for reciprocity because they are means of circumventing reciprocity. So since they are all worse than reciprocity, one must answer the question why one seeks something less than reciprocity, and as such why one seeks to preserve means of irreciprocity.
I mean, we know why our ancient enemy wants to preserve irreciprocity – to preserve parasitism upon the productive people.Mar 14, 2019, 4:44 PMScott SchroederCurt Doolittle NAP is not the major issue to me. Whatever you call them, restraints have been put on the warrior and merchant class that force then to work for the common good, somewhat. You can’t use your superior strength to take what you want. You can’t burn down a competitor’s warehouse or lie about them. You can’t have a monopoly (unless it has been authorized by the priest class). The modern priest class is in power and they have no restraints.Mar 14, 2019, 4:56 PMChristian KalafutWhen am I going to get my 3,000 page minimum tome of Propertarianism Curt Doolittle?Mar 15, 2019, 1:17 AMCurt DoolittleYou? Never. I”m going to make sure you never get a copy. lolMar 15, 2019, 7:57 AMChristian KalafutMeanMar 15, 2019, 12:24 PMTHE PERIODIC TABLE OF SPEECH
There are a few fundamental innovations in Propertarianism
1 – The Dimensional warranty of due diligence
2 – The Periodic Table of speech (Grammars)
3 – The Operational language and grammar in ePrime
4 – The Method of producing serialized Definitions (Disambiguation)
5 – Property in toto and the completion of the anarchic program in a reduction of social science to statements of changes in the state of ‘property’ (interests).
Teaching people GRAMMAR so that they can DECODE speech is not the same as teaching people to speak exclusively in decoded speech.
We have been teaching people grammar, logic, rhetoric, arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy since the medieval era.
Written speech is more rigorous than spoken. contract language more rigorous than written. P-speech more rigorous than contract. And the purpose of this speech is to construct law that is not open to ‘interpretation’ and therefore closed to ‘legislation from the bench’.
—“In my experience one only need set about resolving oneself to use honest and clear wording to express one’s points/stance while being as factually based as possible. “—
And so what’s the difference other than a formal method for doing so that also defends against error, and bias? And how would I hold you accountable for speaking honestly without some method for testing your speech – rather than just depend on your OPINION as to whether you speak honestly.
What you MEAN is that you don’t want to be forced to learn how to do such a thing. And you don’t want such a thing embodied in law, because you don’t want to be accountable for your words.
“Any argument, theory, definition, should be incomprehensible until it is only comprehensible without error.”
Regarding:
—“1. Objective truth (what is, something generally agreed we can never ‘be completely sure of’, but as a concept Peterson certainly does believe this exists);
2. scientific truth (our best guess through the scientific method, at attainment of some constrained resolution of objective truth); and
3. pragmatic truth (verification of a bounded hypothesis adjusted by feedback, which Peterson agrees has all sorts of precision limitations).”—
I handle this by dropping the term truth, and adopting decidability. Such that truth remains what it is, and we are seeking decidability sufficient for market demand.
photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/54114900_10157038583577264_5113486675619610624_n_10157038583572264.jpg photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/54435725_10157038583617264_6883440151385604096_o_10157038583607264.jpg Uralic languages
Uralic languages, family of more than 20 related languages, all descended from a Proto-Uralic language that existed 7,000 to 10,000 years ago. At its earliest stages, Uralic most probably included the ancestors of the Yukaghir language. The Uralic languages are spoken by more than 25 million people scattered throughout northeastern Europe, northern Asia, and (through immigration) North America. The most demographically important Uralic language is Hungarian, the official language of Hungary. Two other Uralic languages, Estonian (the official language of Estonia) and Finnish (one of two national languages of Finland—the other is Swedish, a Germanic language), are also spoken by millions.
Attempts to trace the genealogy of the Uralic languages to periods earlier than Proto-Uralic have been hampered by the great changes in the attested languages, which preserve relatively few features and therefore provide little evidence upon which scholars may base meaningful claims for a more distant relationship. Most commonly mentioned in this respect is a putative connection with the Altaic language family (including Turkic and Mongolian). This hypothetical language group, called Ural-Altaic, is not considered by most scholars to be soundly based. Although the Uralic and Indo-European languages are not generally thought to be related, more speculative studies have suggested a connection between them. Relationship with the Eskimo languages, Dravidian (e.g., Telugu), Japanese, Korean, and various American Indian groups has also been proposed. The most radical of these claims is the massive Dené-Finnish grouping of Morris Swadesh, which encompasses, among others, Sino-Tibetan (e.g., Chinese) and Athabaskan (e.g., Navajo).
The Uralic language family in its current status consists of two related groups of languages, the Finno-Ugric and the Samoyedic, both of which developed from a common ancestor, called Proto-Uralic, that was spoken 7,000 to 10,000 years ago in the general area of the north-central Ural Mountains. At its very earliest stages Uralic most probably included the ancestors of the Yukaghir languages (formerly listed as a Paleo-Siberian stock with no known relatives).
Over the millennia, both Finno-Ugric and Samoyedic branches of Uralic have given rise to more or less divergent subgroups of languages, which nonetheless have retained certain traits from their common source. For example, the degree of similarity between two of the least closely related members of the Finno-Ugric group, Hungarian and Finnish, is comparable to that between English and Russian (which belong to the Indo-European family of languages). The difference between any Finno-Ugric language and any Samoyedic tongue would be even greater. On the other hand, more closely related members of Finno-Ugric, such as Finnish and Estonian, differ in much the same manner as greatly diverse dialects of the same language.
TRAINING in operational prose, logic, and grammar would help all people communicate just like the same operational prose, logic, and grammar help the scientific community communicate – although P-law, in addition covers not just the physical sciences but the human (psychology, sociology, ethics, law, politics, group strategy, and literature)
But just as one cannot hope to communicate in mathematics or physics or chemistry or law without training in those disciplines, one cannot hope to communicate in the Human Sciences, and in particular ‘morality’ without training in the language and method of doing so.
Ergo, One can train people in the logic of cooperation but one cannot discourse with people unless they are so trained. the reason being that one can never divorce himself from cognitive bias, and accumulated disinformation without that training any more than one can grasp physics without training – Sciences exist because such things are beyond the limits of our personal comprehension without systems of measurement to eliminate our biases and disinformation.
So, yes, if you learn the propertarian method you can speak in measurements. Those measurements are not all that complicated really. But it appears to take about six months to two years to learn them today. And, I assume we can cut that to less time with the courses.
