Curt Doolittle

Theme: Measurement

  • I LOOK AT MEASUREMENT, NOT PROMISE. ***I look at very simple things: what is the

    I LOOK AT MEASUREMENT, NOT PROMISE.

    ***I look at very simple things: what is the method of argument being made, what is the change in behavior being advocated, what is the change in capital being advocated, what are the consequences to capital of those actions, and what are the changes l to the overall capital structure – and that is how I make my decisions.

    I the look at the enlightenment in its artistic versions in the south; its empirical versions in England; its moralistic versions in france; its rational versions in germany; its literary versions in russia, and it’s fictionalist (pseudo-scientific and pseudo-rational) versions among the jews (ashkenazi).

    Polytheism consists of hero worship that suites the needs of a diverse and wealthy polity, and monotheism the needs of a labor and poor polity.

    So if I want to save my people from lies, superstition, supernaturalism, pseudorationalism, and pseudoscience, I will expose every lie by every people, no matter how much comfort that they take in it.***

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-11 16:02:00 UTC

  • Thought At Post Human Scale

    THE BASICS OF THOUGHT AT POST-HUMAN SCALE Ideal types, and idealism (which I criticize almost as frequently as fictionalism), are products of the problems at human scale: antiquity and pre-modernity. We can see the enlightenment as an attempt to successfully transition from measurements at human scale, within the realm of human perception, to the measurements beyond human scale, and therefore beyond our perception. It is not surprising that our conventional (normative) thinking and language lag our instruments of measurement both physical (mechanical) and mental (conceptual). Darwin is quite old technology by now but much of the world does not understand that evolution is directionless except in favor of complexity for both the exploitation of niches and the retention of prior techniques (genes) so that they can re-emerge if needed. So this is why I insist on operational definitions on a spectrum so that people cannot fall into the trap of comparing concepts that rely on different production cycles (durations) involving different numbers of people (complexity and scale). Unfortunately Hayekian Triangles are a bit much for ordinary man to cope with, and IS/LM(Keynesian) and classical supply and demand curves only a bit less so. But we can start with the simple illustration that no concept in isolation informs us to its limits. Ergo, the golden rule is useless without the silver rule. This principle of ,via-positiva vs via-negative (western progressive version of the eastern static idea of ying vs yang) provides us with convergence: that which survives both meaning (possibility) and criticism (limits). Without limits, we cannot test our meaning. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Thought At Post Human Scale

    THE BASICS OF THOUGHT AT POST-HUMAN SCALE Ideal types, and idealism (which I criticize almost as frequently as fictionalism), are products of the problems at human scale: antiquity and pre-modernity. We can see the enlightenment as an attempt to successfully transition from measurements at human scale, within the realm of human perception, to the measurements beyond human scale, and therefore beyond our perception. It is not surprising that our conventional (normative) thinking and language lag our instruments of measurement both physical (mechanical) and mental (conceptual). Darwin is quite old technology by now but much of the world does not understand that evolution is directionless except in favor of complexity for both the exploitation of niches and the retention of prior techniques (genes) so that they can re-emerge if needed. So this is why I insist on operational definitions on a spectrum so that people cannot fall into the trap of comparing concepts that rely on different production cycles (durations) involving different numbers of people (complexity and scale). Unfortunately Hayekian Triangles are a bit much for ordinary man to cope with, and IS/LM(Keynesian) and classical supply and demand curves only a bit less so. But we can start with the simple illustration that no concept in isolation informs us to its limits. Ergo, the golden rule is useless without the silver rule. This principle of ,via-positiva vs via-negative (western progressive version of the eastern static idea of ying vs yang) provides us with convergence: that which survives both meaning (possibility) and criticism (limits). Without limits, we cannot test our meaning. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • The Functions of a Philosopher

    THE FUNCTIONS OF A PHILOSOPHER SCIENCE (Existence) (Sources of facts, theories, and laws) Science(investigation) = Beginning with man, his senses, perceptions, reasoning, memory, and physical abilities as the first unit of measure, the search for greater precision in measurement, understanding and therefore greater agency by the incremental removal of ignorance, error, bias, and deceit, using increasingly precise instrumentation both physical and logical that permits increasingly precise measurement both physical, logical, and experiential, at sub human, human, and superhuman scales, across increasingly small, increasingly vast, and increasingly numerous phenomenon. PHILOSOPHY (Existential Goods) (Sources of Knowledge) Philosophy(synthesis) (truthful/existential) = given new information, the search for decidability within a context under the assumption of some set of goals or preferences, given new knowledge and information, by reorganizing the objects, relations, and values to correspond with the findings TRUTH (Judgement) Truth (parsimony)(decidability) = the search for decidability, given all available knowledge, across all contexts, regardless of the assumptions of goals or preferences. HOPE (Psychological goods) (Sources of Ignorance)(values-by-chanting) Ideal Philosophy(imaginary/hypothetical): the search for attributions of value despite the truth, philosophy, and science, so that we may rally our efforts in spite of them – – or escape reality by placing hope in the unachievable that we cannot perceive and sense. DECEPTION (psychological goods) (Sources of Ignorance) (religion, pseudorationalism, pseudoscience, propaganda) Fictional Philosophy (deceptive): the search for false authority that will coerce individuals to value that which is contrary to their value judgements, despite truth, philosophy, science, and ideals, so that we may rally our efforts in spite of them – or escape reality by placing hope in the unachievable that we cannot perceive and sense.

  • The Functions of a Philosopher

    THE FUNCTIONS OF A PHILOSOPHER SCIENCE (Existence) (Sources of facts, theories, and laws) Science(investigation) = Beginning with man, his senses, perceptions, reasoning, memory, and physical abilities as the first unit of measure, the search for greater precision in measurement, understanding and therefore greater agency by the incremental removal of ignorance, error, bias, and deceit, using increasingly precise instrumentation both physical and logical that permits increasingly precise measurement both physical, logical, and experiential, at sub human, human, and superhuman scales, across increasingly small, increasingly vast, and increasingly numerous phenomenon. PHILOSOPHY (Existential Goods) (Sources of Knowledge) Philosophy(synthesis) (truthful/existential) = given new information, the search for decidability within a context under the assumption of some set of goals or preferences, given new knowledge and information, by reorganizing the objects, relations, and values to correspond with the findings TRUTH (Judgement) Truth (parsimony)(decidability) = the search for decidability, given all available knowledge, across all contexts, regardless of the assumptions of goals or preferences. HOPE (Psychological goods) (Sources of Ignorance)(values-by-chanting) Ideal Philosophy(imaginary/hypothetical): the search for attributions of value despite the truth, philosophy, and science, so that we may rally our efforts in spite of them – – or escape reality by placing hope in the unachievable that we cannot perceive and sense. DECEPTION (psychological goods) (Sources of Ignorance) (religion, pseudorationalism, pseudoscience, propaganda) Fictional Philosophy (deceptive): the search for false authority that will coerce individuals to value that which is contrary to their value judgements, despite truth, philosophy, science, and ideals, so that we may rally our efforts in spite of them – or escape reality by placing hope in the unachievable that we cannot perceive and sense.

  • Points of Demarcation – Analog and Sets.

    Apr 10, 2017 9:50am (very advanced stuff) —“The former are concerned with impossibility, whilst the latter are concerned with impermissibility”— 1) Are they possible? In other words, are you creating a point of demarcation (the error of sets and digital/binary thinking) rather than continuous/analog causes and effect? (yes) 2) physical reality provides decidability (possibility), but does not human behavior provide decidability (possibility), with the distinction that humans can ‘recall’ as well as ‘forecast’ and therefore we can take on debts and make investments in cooperation. But can we in fact, state that humans will tolerate free riding, parasitism, predation and genocide? and if so where is some evidence of that? (there isn’t any, because it isn’t possible, it’s just SLOWer than physical phenomenon because of the ‘capacitance’ and ‘resistance’ provided by our ability to remember and forecast.) ( Tip: you’ve studied enough philosophy to fall into the trap of 20th century thought inherited from mathematics: set theory, and non contradiction. This is rationalism and includes only a subset of information about reality. Once you include the additional – missing – dimensions of reality you will no longer be able to make use of ‘the error of rationalism’: sets. … which is a very long discussion outside of the context of this topic.) —“Could you unpack this a bit? My statement is directed more towards the limits of empiricism, so I am unclear as to what you mean by unlimited and insufficient.”— 3 – The positivism/empiricism debate, especially those who were unfortunately poisoned by first Kantian, and second Jewish (so called austrian, but not austrian) thought, as well as all cosmopolitan thought (freud, marx, boaz, cantor, frankfurt) is, like all late 19th and 20th century philosophy, a failed program. So, to deflate this set of fallacies, let’s start over with the dimensions of reality: a) identity (categorical consistency) ie: point b) logic (internal consistency) ie: line c) empiricism (external consistency / external correspondence) ie: space d) operationalism (existential consistency ) ie: time (change) f) morality (reciprocal consistency / reciprocity ) ie: cooperation (volition) g) limits (full-accounting, limits, and parsimony) ie: consequence. And to speak of reality we can also use terms that correspond to those dimensions, and thereby avoid errors of the past. a) Operational Definitions, therefore deflating experience, intention, assumption, and analogy. (identity, point) b) Operational Definitions in a series, therefore deflating the natural conflation of ideal types, by describing any concept on a scale – usually a scale of quantity (or population) on one axis, and time on the other axis. (identity, logic, line) c) Supply Demand Curves (competition) (identity, logic, line, space) d) Multiple Supply Demand Curves (equilibria) (identity, logic, line, space, time ) e) Models consisting of all discernably causal equilibrating forces (identity, logic, line, space, competition) SUMMARY So like we cannot predict the location of a molecule of gas released in a vacuum, and we cannot predict subatomic phenomenon, because we cannot measure the states without affecting them; and like we cannot measure certain economic phenomenon at the individual level for the same reason, (we simply lack the information on the one hand, and attempting to obtain it would change the state), and just as we cannot determine the future competition between civilizations, that does not meant that there are not universal and necessary rules to these phenomenon whehther conditionaly invariant (physical), heuristically variant (interpersonal), or exogenously invariant (civilizational). The reason being that there are limits to human perception, cognition, retention, forecast, trust, ethics/morality, and action. Man is his own measure.

  • Points of Demarcation – Analog and Sets.

    Apr 10, 2017 9:50am (very advanced stuff) —“The former are concerned with impossibility, whilst the latter are concerned with impermissibility”— 1) Are they possible? In other words, are you creating a point of demarcation (the error of sets and digital/binary thinking) rather than continuous/analog causes and effect? (yes) 2) physical reality provides decidability (possibility), but does not human behavior provide decidability (possibility), with the distinction that humans can ‘recall’ as well as ‘forecast’ and therefore we can take on debts and make investments in cooperation. But can we in fact, state that humans will tolerate free riding, parasitism, predation and genocide? and if so where is some evidence of that? (there isn’t any, because it isn’t possible, it’s just SLOWer than physical phenomenon because of the ‘capacitance’ and ‘resistance’ provided by our ability to remember and forecast.) ( Tip: you’ve studied enough philosophy to fall into the trap of 20th century thought inherited from mathematics: set theory, and non contradiction. This is rationalism and includes only a subset of information about reality. Once you include the additional – missing – dimensions of reality you will no longer be able to make use of ‘the error of rationalism’: sets. … which is a very long discussion outside of the context of this topic.) —“Could you unpack this a bit? My statement is directed more towards the limits of empiricism, so I am unclear as to what you mean by unlimited and insufficient.”— 3 – The positivism/empiricism debate, especially those who were unfortunately poisoned by first Kantian, and second Jewish (so called austrian, but not austrian) thought, as well as all cosmopolitan thought (freud, marx, boaz, cantor, frankfurt) is, like all late 19th and 20th century philosophy, a failed program. So, to deflate this set of fallacies, let’s start over with the dimensions of reality: a) identity (categorical consistency) ie: point b) logic (internal consistency) ie: line c) empiricism (external consistency / external correspondence) ie: space d) operationalism (existential consistency ) ie: time (change) f) morality (reciprocal consistency / reciprocity ) ie: cooperation (volition) g) limits (full-accounting, limits, and parsimony) ie: consequence. And to speak of reality we can also use terms that correspond to those dimensions, and thereby avoid errors of the past. a) Operational Definitions, therefore deflating experience, intention, assumption, and analogy. (identity, point) b) Operational Definitions in a series, therefore deflating the natural conflation of ideal types, by describing any concept on a scale – usually a scale of quantity (or population) on one axis, and time on the other axis. (identity, logic, line) c) Supply Demand Curves (competition) (identity, logic, line, space) d) Multiple Supply Demand Curves (equilibria) (identity, logic, line, space, time ) e) Models consisting of all discernably causal equilibrating forces (identity, logic, line, space, competition) SUMMARY So like we cannot predict the location of a molecule of gas released in a vacuum, and we cannot predict subatomic phenomenon, because we cannot measure the states without affecting them; and like we cannot measure certain economic phenomenon at the individual level for the same reason, (we simply lack the information on the one hand, and attempting to obtain it would change the state), and just as we cannot determine the future competition between civilizations, that does not meant that there are not universal and necessary rules to these phenomenon whehther conditionaly invariant (physical), heuristically variant (interpersonal), or exogenously invariant (civilizational). The reason being that there are limits to human perception, cognition, retention, forecast, trust, ethics/morality, and action. Man is his own measure.

  • Q&A: “CURT, WHY DONT YOU USE THE TERM REDUCTION?” —“I am surprised I haven’t h

    Q&A: “CURT, WHY DONT YOU USE THE TERM REDUCTION?”

    —“I am surprised I haven’t heard you mention or talk about reduction in any of your work. Because when I think of Propertarianism ( and I use this to refer to all of your work) I see how you have reduced complex ideas into smaller statements and/or terms(definitions). So I suppose what I think I’m asking is, has reduction played a specific part in your work and if so would it be beneficial for others to understand the process of complexity and reduction?Thanks,”— A Friend

    Um. I use the terms “Deconflation, Deflationary, Deflate, Parsimony, Parsimonious, and Analytic, and Operational” and I should but don’t use Reduction or Reductonism primarily because (a) I’m not sure what people hear, and (b) i like to emphasize the problem of deconflation rather than simplifications.

    In other words, it is one thing to reduce things and another to describe how one reduces things. I reduce things largely by a process of deconflation. I achieve that deconflation through the use of a series of techniques:

    (a) Operational grammar thereby deflating POV.

    (b) Operational descriptions thereby deflating loading framing, etc

    (c) Descriptions in Series,(Spectrums, lists, grids, truth tables) thereby deflating the use of terms to describe multiple states.

    (d) Equilibrial forces between series.

    (e) The evolutionary result of competition between sets of equilibrial forces.

    Deconflation and Deflation are in fact, methods of Reductionism. And Reductionism, now that you made me think of it, at least ‘sounds like’ a good term of common understanding for marketing the value of Propertarianism. And I will test it a bit and see if I can make that point now and then. So thank you for the suggestion.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-10 08:36:00 UTC

  • THE BASICS OF THOUGHT AT POST-HUMAN SCALE Ideal types, and idealism (which I cri

    THE BASICS OF THOUGHT AT POST-HUMAN SCALE

    Ideal types, and idealism (which I criticize almost as frequently as fictionalism), are products of the problems at human scale: antiquity and pre-modernity.

    We can see the enlightenment as an attempt to successfully transition from measurements at human scale, within the realm of human perception, to the measurements beyond human scale, and therefore beyond our perception.

    It is not surprising that our conventional (normative) thinking and language lag our instruments of measurement both physical (mechanical) and mental (conceptual). Darwin is quite old technology by now but much of the world does not understand that evolution is directionless except in favor of complexity for both the exploitation of niches and the retention of prior techniques (genes) so that they can re-emerge if needed.

    So this is why I insist on operational definitions on a spectrum so that people cannot fall into the trap of comparing concepts that rely on different production cycles (durations) involving different numbers of people (complexity and scale).

    Unfortunately Hayekian Triangles are a bit much for ordinary man to cope with, and IS/LM(Keynesian) and classical supply and demand curves only a bit less so.

    But we can start with the simple illustration that no concept in isolation informs us to its limits. Ergo, the golden rule is useless without the silver rule.

    This principle of ,via-positiva vs via-negative (western progressive version of the eastern static idea of ying vs yang) provides us with convergence: that which survives both meaning (possibility) and criticism (limits). Without limits, we cannot test our meaning.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-09 13:13:00 UTC

  • DEFINITIONS, OPERATIONAL, IN SERIES, AND IN EQUILIBRIUM Definitions are very pow

    DEFINITIONS, OPERATIONAL, IN SERIES, AND IN EQUILIBRIUM

    Definitions are very powerful, operational definitions much more so, and operational definitions in series are even more so, and the comparison of series in equilibrium even more so.

    With definitions in series alone, comprehension increases dramatically. It is equivalent to the difference between the descriptive power of arithmetic and the descriptive power of geometry.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-09 10:43:00 UTC