Curt Doolittle

Theme: Grammar

  • UNREADABLE DOOLITTLE” —“or the aggressively-unreadable Doolittle.”—- You kno

    http://selfadoration.com/for-luke-williams-heres-a-complimentary-grenade-to-lob-into-your-non-agression-principle-debate/8123″AGGRESSIVELY UNREADABLE DOOLITTLE”

    http://selfadoration.com/for-luke-williams-heres-a-complimentary-grenade-to-lob-into-your-non-agression-principle-debate/8123

    —“or the aggressively-unreadable Doolittle.”—-

    You know, I want to say ‘ouch’ but, I have to just own it. lol.

    On the other hand have you read Hegel? Wittgenstein? Heidegger?

    Philosophy is a technical specialty like any niche technical discipline. The difference is that we are often trying to reorder existing human conceptual categories, properties, and relations. Rewiring the mind so to speak.

    I am far better than I was even four years ago. And I will get better still. But in the end, a philosopher writes for experts, experts write for the heavily interested, and the heavily interested write for the popular, and the popular simplify for the simple. This is how innovation in thought is distributed.

    I am not the first person to say that our job is to bring people up to the new level of comprehension not dumb it down for the existing level where its lacking. Else darwin would have vanished by now. Even still – most people still think evolution has a direction. 🙂

    I am doing something very special. And very important. And I know that doing it in public is a risk. But it turns out lots of people like to see the product being made so to speak, and it also turns out that it helps me a great deal to get their comment and criticism.

    I want to make it impossible for politicians and public intellectuals to lie without repercussion. To do that I have to show how to tell the truth. From there how to put the technique for truth telling into law, and a constitution. If we make it just as difficult to deceive, lie cheat, free ride and privatize as we have made it difficult to steal physical property, then liberty will result from it. Because all those things that prohibit liberty are matters of theft of one kind or another. So instead of advocating liberty as a way of producing liberty, I’m trying to outlaw everything else so that only liberty remains.

    It is this inversion of the philosophy of liberty that takes a while to get your head around. Just as incremental suppression of parasitism by the constant evolution of the common law leaves only the market available for survival, I want to make the incremental suppression of parasitism in the public discourse and law leaving only truth candidates that survive. If we succeed at this goal, and if we convert from monopoly rule democracy to a market for the production of commons between the classes, then we will have constructed a condition of liberty – and a condition of liberty that persists.

    Anyway. I really do apologize that my work is indigestible. It really does take a pretty sophisticated individual to grok it. But they do. And we move onward. Slowly.

    Affections

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-12 15:40:00 UTC

  • Very Short Introduction to the Epistemology of Testimonialism

    [B]RIEF DISCUSSION OF THE EPISTEMOLOGY OF TESTIMONIALISM 1) All non-tautological statements are incomplete, and as such no non-trivial premises are complete. Therefore all statements consist of nothing more than theoretical promises contingent upon their survival of criticism. 2) We can systematically criticize each dimension of every statement for identity, internal consistency, existential possibility, external correspondence, morality, full accounting, limits and parsimony. 3) If the statement survives this (admittedly expensive) criticism, then it remains a truth candidate that we can take risks with or not as our judgement sees fit. 4) Instead of justification providing legitimacy or support, provides a discount on later warranties, not an increase in truth content. Note: This last statement kind of threw me because I wasn’t expecting to come to that kind of conclusion. So while I wish I was done with this topic, it still behooves me to work on this problem. I still move it forward a bit at a time. The further I move it the less questions are left open and the more survivable the theory is from refutation. The hardest problem of all is parsimony, and as far as I know the only way to achieve this is through publication and social criticism. Thanks for following me on the journey.

  • HEADLINE: FORMATTING IN PLAIN TEXT FOR READABILITY (context tags) (subheading) (

    HEADLINE: FORMATTING IN PLAIN TEXT FOR READABILITY

    (context tags) (subheading) (h/t for thanks)

    —“Quote”—Someone

    ***Self Quote***

    Improper Proper-Case for terms you might need to Look Up Elsewhere.

    *Emphasis* for words to remember or EMPHASIS for unintuitive ideas.

    Use (red) parenthesis (blue) to (green) associate (yellow) common (violet) and technical language, or parallel terms.

    SUBHEADING LEVEL 1

    –Subheading Level 2–

    (more….)

    (…more ) To break long posts into a series.

    url : for the references to the original article.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-10 03:49:00 UTC

  • BRIEF DISCUSSION OF THE EPISTEMOLOGY OF TESTIMONIALISM All non-tautological stat

    BRIEF DISCUSSION OF THE EPISTEMOLOGY OF TESTIMONIALISM

    All non-tautological statements are incomplete, and as such no non-trivial premises are complete. Therefore all statements consist of nothing more than theoretical promises contingent upon their survival of criticism.

    We can systematically criticize each dimension of every statement for identity, internal consistency, existential possibility, external correspondence, morality, full accounting, limits and parsimony.

    If the statement survives this (admittedly expensive) criticism, then it remains a truth candidate that we can take risks with or not as our judgement sees fit.

    Instead of justification providing legitimacy or support, provides a discount on later warranties, not an increase in truth content.

    This last statement kind of threw me because I wasn’t expecting to come to that kind of conclusion.

    So it still behooves me to work on this problem. I still move it forward a bit at a time. The further I move it the less questions are left open and the more survivable the theory is from refutation.

    The hardest problem of all is parsimony, and as far as I know the only way to achieve this is through publication and social criticism.

    Thanks for following me on the journey.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-08 13:14:00 UTC

  • It’s amazing that you can share values with another person so nearly identically

    It’s amazing that you can share values with another person so nearly identically yet not really be understood by the other person – not because of difference in values, but because of differences in experience, and differences in trust.

    I always think that while my ideas may be hard to understand, that I’m actually pretty simple. I’m out there in public – completely.

    I’m a hamster. Family, friends, food, chatter, and ideas. Business is a sport. Simple. 🙂

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-08 10:35:00 UTC

  • What is the Difference Between Information and Statement

    [I]’m working through Kripke again because I know it’s a half truth and I can’t quite put my finger on what’s missing. I know what is wrong with analytic philosophy (sets): their construction destroys information, causation, and operational construction, and therefore existential possibility. I know what’s right with information analysis: marginal difference (cause of change in state). So analytic philosophy is a sort of dead end in the sense that language is always informationally incomplete. But his understanding of names is correct. Even if his examples are not (the referent Aristotle isn’t identical to the referent Aristotle if he dies at age two and never creates the set of properties Aristotle). We cannot construct the references to the two year old without the reference to the man Aristotle. Therefore operationally, the example cannot exist. I can refer to Aristotle at the age of two, but I cannot refer to a greek two year old with the name of Aristotle. and convey any meaning without the existence of the aforementioned Aristotle as an accomplished adult. Meaning does not tell us much about truth – if anything. And the verbalists (analyticals and rationalists) are working with too little information to achieve much. Existence tells us a great deal about truth. Even if other methods tell us a lot about meaning. But even where they tell us about meaning, they tell us nothing about truth. And I think this is the area of confusion, because of hermeneutic conflation. We see this coming out of judaism and christianity and into law, where it did not previously exist. But this conflation of truth and meaning has imposed a catastrophically damaging influence on western thought. And in both the ancient(agrarian), modern(industrial), and current (information) eras, it has constituted a revolt against truth and the undesirability of truth for the parasitic and unproductive classes, peoples, and cultures. Meaning is dependent upon the content of one’s mind, and analogy to experience, but has little to no dependence upon truth content. Truth is dependent upon reality that is independent of the content and mechanism of of one’s mind – even if it is dependent upon the reduction to analogy to experience so that the mind can grasp it. But meaning is required as part of the process of free association. It is useful in obtaining information (hypotheses) that we may pursue and turn into truth candidates. It is useful in the transfer of experiences whether or not those experiences contain truth content. We must construct hypotheses out of concepts we can grasp, and we can only grasp concepts reducible to analogies to experience. So we must accumulate analogies to experience in sufficient number that we are able to run tests for possibility. This is one of the reasons for the value of scientific thinking (theories of general rules) since they reduce the informational content we must process in order to identify patterns and test perceptions and information against them. My hope (my suspicion) is that truthfulness once practiced like any other set of general rules will have an equally influential impact on human demonstrated intelligence and cooperation as has science. My concern is that we have passed peak human and are damaging our gene pool, and that we must reverse our century and a half of dysgenia before the accumulated damage is not correctable through assortative mating. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Lviv Ukraine

  • What is the Difference Between Information and Statement

    [I]’m working through Kripke again because I know it’s a half truth and I can’t quite put my finger on what’s missing. I know what is wrong with analytic philosophy (sets): their construction destroys information, causation, and operational construction, and therefore existential possibility. I know what’s right with information analysis: marginal difference (cause of change in state). So analytic philosophy is a sort of dead end in the sense that language is always informationally incomplete. But his understanding of names is correct. Even if his examples are not (the referent Aristotle isn’t identical to the referent Aristotle if he dies at age two and never creates the set of properties Aristotle). We cannot construct the references to the two year old without the reference to the man Aristotle. Therefore operationally, the example cannot exist. I can refer to Aristotle at the age of two, but I cannot refer to a greek two year old with the name of Aristotle. and convey any meaning without the existence of the aforementioned Aristotle as an accomplished adult. Meaning does not tell us much about truth – if anything. And the verbalists (analyticals and rationalists) are working with too little information to achieve much. Existence tells us a great deal about truth. Even if other methods tell us a lot about meaning. But even where they tell us about meaning, they tell us nothing about truth. And I think this is the area of confusion, because of hermeneutic conflation. We see this coming out of judaism and christianity and into law, where it did not previously exist. But this conflation of truth and meaning has imposed a catastrophically damaging influence on western thought. And in both the ancient(agrarian), modern(industrial), and current (information) eras, it has constituted a revolt against truth and the undesirability of truth for the parasitic and unproductive classes, peoples, and cultures. Meaning is dependent upon the content of one’s mind, and analogy to experience, but has little to no dependence upon truth content. Truth is dependent upon reality that is independent of the content and mechanism of of one’s mind – even if it is dependent upon the reduction to analogy to experience so that the mind can grasp it. But meaning is required as part of the process of free association. It is useful in obtaining information (hypotheses) that we may pursue and turn into truth candidates. It is useful in the transfer of experiences whether or not those experiences contain truth content. We must construct hypotheses out of concepts we can grasp, and we can only grasp concepts reducible to analogies to experience. So we must accumulate analogies to experience in sufficient number that we are able to run tests for possibility. This is one of the reasons for the value of scientific thinking (theories of general rules) since they reduce the informational content we must process in order to identify patterns and test perceptions and information against them. My hope (my suspicion) is that truthfulness once practiced like any other set of general rules will have an equally influential impact on human demonstrated intelligence and cooperation as has science. My concern is that we have passed peak human and are damaging our gene pool, and that we must reverse our century and a half of dysgenia before the accumulated damage is not correctable through assortative mating. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Lviv Ukraine

  • WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INFORMATION AND STATEMENT? I’m working through Kr

    WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INFORMATION AND STATEMENT?

    I’m working through Kripke again because I know it’s a half truth and I can’t quite put my finger on what’s missing. I know what is wrong with analytic philosophy (sets): their construction destroys information, causation, and operational construction, and therefore existential possibility. I know what’s right with information analysis: marginal difference (cause of change in state).

    So analytic philosophy is a sort of dead end in the sense that language is always informationally incomplete.

    But his understanding of names is correct. Even if his examples are not (the referent Aristotle isn’t identical to the referent Aristotle if he dies at age two and never creates the set of properties Aristotle). We cannot construct the references to the two year old without the reference to the man Aristotle. Therefore operationally, the example cannot exist. I can refer to Aristotle at the age of two, but I cannot refer to a greek two year old with the name of Aristotle. and convey any meaning without the existence of the aforementioned Aristotle as an accomplished adult.

    Meaning does not tell us much about truth – if anything. And the verbalists (analyticals and rationalists) are working with too little information to achieve much. Existence tells us a great deal about truth. Even if other methods tell us a lot about meaning. But even where they tell us about meaning, they tell us nothing about truth. And I think this is the area of confusion, because of hermeneutic conflation. We see this coming out of judaism and christianity and into law, where it did not previously exist. But this conflation of truth and meaning has imposed a catastrophically damaging influence on western thought. And in both the ancient(agrarian), modern(industrial), and current (information) eras, it has constituted a revolt against truth and the undesirability of truth for the parasitic and unproductive classes, peoples, and cultures.

    Meaning is dependent upon the content of one’s mind, and analogy to experience, but has little to no dependence upon truth content.

    Truth is dependent upon reality that is independent of the content and mechanism of of one’s mind – even if it is dependent upon the reduction to analogy to experience so that the mind can grasp it.

    But meaning is required as part of the process of free association. It is useful in obtaining information (hypotheses) that we may pursue and turn into truth candidates. It is useful in the transfer of experiences whether or not those experiences contain truth content. We must construct hypotheses out of concepts we can grasp, and we can only grasp concepts reducible to analogies to experience. So we must accumulate analogies to experience in sufficient number that we are able to run tests for possibility.

    This is one of the reasons for the value of scientific thinking (theories of general rules) since they reduce the informational content we must process in order to identify patterns and test perceptions and information against them.

    My hope (my suspicion) is that truthfulness once practiced like any other set of general rules will have an equally influential impact on human demonstrated intelligence and cooperation as has science.

    My concern is that we have passed peak human and are damaging our gene pool, and that we must reverse our century and a half of dysgenia before the accumulated damage is not correctable through assortative mating.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Lviv Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-04 05:25:00 UTC

  • FREE AND FRIEND —‘Frei’ is simply High German for the ancient Germanic words f

    FREE AND FRIEND

    —‘Frei’ is simply High German for the ancient Germanic words for Free, as ‘Fri’ is in Friesian. Link below shows that ‘Fri’ is also the basis of the word friend which originally meant a free member of one’s tribe. Friend and Frieden I would posit have the same origin. Most certainly freedom and peace both pre-date the state and are linked to free nation. — Aaron Kahland

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-14 03:17:00 UTC

  • Example of Translating Into Propertarianism

    [Y]ou know, normally I wouldn’t respond, but you’re a moral person and you’re trying, so I’m going to restate what you say scientifically. Watch what happens. —“The first truth that needs to be asserted is that nature is a product of an action, not an action in and of itself. The second truth, is that nature has a tendency to move from order to chaos, not chaos to order.”— Translates to: Man creates his personal, intellectual, social, political and economic method of cooperation, which we observe in the form of patterns of behavior, reproduction, norms, production, laws, institutions by the cumulative influence of his actions. We will call set of patterns this that produce cooperation a ‘social order’. Social orders have a tendency to evolve through experimentation, rent-seeking, and shocks until the patterns fail to assist in cooperation, and instead hinder cooperation, resulting in desires and therefore demand for restructuring these patterns of behavior using different principles, technologies, and institutions of cooperation. Comment: You are mixing religious, moral, and semi-scientific terminology and phrasing. Thankfully I”m able to disassemble it.

    —“We can make the same conclusions regarding morality and ethics.”—

    Those institutions of cooperation that we name “ethics” for interpersonal actions, and “morality” for the external consequences of our actions, also follow the same pattern of evolution until they no longer assist in cooperation, but hinder cooperation.

    —“Modern science has affirmed the counter,”—

    (I am afraid I cannot translate this except as ‘modern science has asserted otherwise’?)

    —“[science] has lead to fallacious conclusions about nearly every other subject that it touches.”—

    Unfortunately, due to the introduction of pseudoscience in the social sciences by Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Keynes, Mises, the Frankfurt School, Rand and Rothbard, as well as all the european and american postmodernists including feminists, and its subsequent adoption in the media, in advertising, in academy, and in the state bureaucracy, and in the primary and secondary school system, and in the collective bargaining groups, pseudoscientific conclusions spread through propaganda have indoctrinated large portions of the electorate, particularly women and the lower classes, into this false pseudoscientific set of ethical and moral conclusions.

    —“Our core philosophical assumptions shape the way we view the world.”—

    The value judgements that we use to decide between and act upon a multitude of possible actions are constructed from instinctual bias, experience with others, observation, norms, traditions, rituals, myths, legends, education, and formal institutions.

    —“I believe these first two truths to be instinctually known rather than empirically proven.”—

    I testify that these statements can be known by intuition and experience, not by pseudoscientific argumentation. In matters of social science, we can only determine what works successfully or unsuccessfully, we cannot know that any hypothesis will be successful or unsuccessful by ratio-scientific analysis. (Note: one does not ‘prove’ anything empirically. One only eliminates alternative hypothesis and imaginary and biased, and false content from one’s statements and theories. When one constructs a proof in logic or mathematics or operationalism, one states only that this construction is possible, not that it is true. It is only true that one may claim it is possible. )

    –“It then becomes a matter of intellectual honesty by affirming what we already know to be true.’—

    (Note: This is total nonsense, sorry. Just because pseudoscience cannot tell us what is true, and just because science can only tell us in the social sciences what is false, that does not mean our intuitions tell us what is true, because we cannot easily separate immoral and unethical norms traditions and teachings from moral and ethical norms and teachings. Otherwise people world wide would intuit ethical and moral action differently. While it is true that our senses tell us what is ethical – we evolved them over time – they can almost never tell us what is moral, and rarely tell us of externalities. Or it would have been possible to develop social science to defeat social pseudoscience before the 21st century.) The rest of the post continues to elaborate on this fallacy, so there is nothing else to comment upon. Science has told us what constitutes ethics and morality. Science has told us what our intutions failed to. All of ethics and morality is composed of an accounting of cooperative assistance and cooperative costs, and that is all it is. All else is just ritualistic language.