(FB 1541541541 Timestamp) OPERATIONALIZE MEANS ANTI-IDEALIZE
Theme: Operationalism
-
(FB 1541541541 Timestamp) OPERATIONALIZE MEANS ANTI-IDEALIZE
(FB 1541541541 Timestamp) OPERATIONALIZE MEANS ANTI-IDEALIZE
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1543416288 Timestamp) THE NEXT SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION (worth repeating) This persistent ‘error’ in the soft (projected) ‘sciences’, is, as far as my work goes, the central problem of thought in the 21st century. We are still trying to overcome the monopoly authoritarianism of Boas, Marx, Feud, Adorno et all, Derrida et al, and the feminists et al that sought to take advantage of the democratic novelty to obtain power. And the 21st century, beginning within the next decade, will consist largely of the transformation of the soft sciences into hard sciences reflecting groups rather than individuals – because the ‘individualism'(ideal) movement has failed. We evolved as a division of perceptual, cognitive, negotiative, and advocative labor across the generations, among members of kin groups functioning as an intertemporal network of ‘calculation’ of choices. The reason people are unhappy is the attempt to create ‘complete’ individuals instead of ‘complete’ kin groups. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1544626422 Timestamp) —“Things like motivation can only be measured in the outcomes they produce. You can claim to be as motivated as you like; but with not fruits, you’d only be demonstrating/ expressing a lie {a claim to motivation you don’t demonstrate}.”–Brandon Hayes
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1546188259 Timestamp) —“Intellectual paradigms must surely require a different system of qualification besides functionality?”— Lisa Outhwaite All these tests are either additive (or not subtractive): 1 – True (not false), 2 – Excellent(not faulty), 3 – Actionable (not inactionable), 4 – Good (not-ir-reciprocal), 5 – Beautiful (not ugly). So yes. And this is yet another EXCELLENT example of why I do not use sets or set logic, but series, supply demand, Limits, and multi-dimensionality. No ideal types, Ideals – single dimensional tests of multi dimensional questions are just a convenient way of using aggregation for the purpose of obscurantism, loading, framing, and deceit. I suppose I should harp on the deconflation problem more often and explain why more often, but THREE POINTS TEST A LINE. A line of two points has no test of error. In other words, contrasting by one axis (statement, comparison) is a simple game – and a game too simple for any question of substance. Yet it is the preferred (lowest cost) method of human speech. Which is why we rely on justification (low cost meaning) versus falsification (high cost truth). This is why I consider all speech representable as geometry. And it is how I approach all speech: geometrically.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1546188259 Timestamp) —“Intellectual paradigms must surely require a different system of qualification besides functionality?”— Lisa Outhwaite All these tests are either additive (or not subtractive): 1 – True (not false), 2 – Excellent(not faulty), 3 – Actionable (not inactionable), 4 – Good (not-ir-reciprocal), 5 – Beautiful (not ugly). So yes. And this is yet another EXCELLENT example of why I do not use sets or set logic, but series, supply demand, Limits, and multi-dimensionality. No ideal types, Ideals – single dimensional tests of multi dimensional questions are just a convenient way of using aggregation for the purpose of obscurantism, loading, framing, and deceit. I suppose I should harp on the deconflation problem more often and explain why more often, but THREE POINTS TEST A LINE. A line of two points has no test of error. In other words, contrasting by one axis (statement, comparison) is a simple game – and a game too simple for any question of substance. Yet it is the preferred (lowest cost) method of human speech. Which is why we rely on justification (low cost meaning) versus falsification (high cost truth). This is why I consider all speech representable as geometry. And it is how I approach all speech: geometrically.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1547142813 Timestamp) CONVERTING PHILOSOPHY INTO SCIENCE (worth repeating) Philosophy can be laundered such that philosophizing (imaginary and verbal) and theorizing (existential and actionable) are essentially identical, by the use of: 1) operational language, 2) the full accounting of costs, and 3) declaring the method of decidability in the choice of preferences and goods as those of: … (a) the feminine equalitarian herd (dysgenic), or … (b) the masculine hierarchical pack (merit). However, if you do that you will end up with the natural law by selecting 3b, and a network of excuses and lies by selecting 3a. You can’t get out of it.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1547142813 Timestamp) CONVERTING PHILOSOPHY INTO SCIENCE (worth repeating) Philosophy can be laundered such that philosophizing (imaginary and verbal) and theorizing (existential and actionable) are essentially identical, by the use of: 1) operational language, 2) the full accounting of costs, and 3) declaring the method of decidability in the choice of preferences and goods as those of: … (a) the feminine equalitarian herd (dysgenic), or … (b) the masculine hierarchical pack (merit). However, if you do that you will end up with the natural law by selecting 3b, and a network of excuses and lies by selecting 3a. You can’t get out of it.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1547142386 Timestamp) ARISTOTLE AS OUR LAWGIVER, vs THE PROPHETS AND THEIR LIES. The first reason to reform Aristotle by translation of his works into operational language is to lionize him and make him the founder of western thought – the via negativa, to the Nihilism of Socrates and the Idealism of Plato, and the lies of the Abrahamists whether Abraham, Saul, or Mohammed. This form of heroic Idolization anthropomorphizes the character (and his military peer alexander) such that we can engage in hero-competition with competing civilizations and their advocates, and our own sophists within, (b) and anchor western civilization as a continuous tradition from our origins in European customary law of sovereignty and tort, to the present anglo common law of tort. The second reason is to falsify all the pseudo-philosophy and theology that exists between aristotle and the present. Now re-writing Aristotle in operational prose would be the equivalent of the work undertaken to produce the king james bible, and the basis of a western education – particularly the Ethics. When combined with the foundational myth of the Trial of Achilles (taught to children by dividing up the work and memorizing it by chanting – given that vast parts are repeated over and over again – and presented by classes as a holiday play). We would have the Hellenic tradition restored. Doing the same for each series of festivals for the old germanic and celtic in fall and winter, and preserving Easter for the christian and mayday would be relatively simple. We can re-ritualize our civilization as historical play. Because, as Nietzsche taught us, it is the participation of the chorus, whether in games, play, ritual, church, or prayer that provides the mindfulness of associating the sacred and collective with the mythos that binds them. If we have an education system (church limited by the natural law) that teaches mindfulness, history, the tools of calculation (reading, writing, numbers, economics, physics), reduce education to part time as soon as children are able to engage in part time work, and put as great an emphasis on apprenticeship as we do higher education, and limit ‘higher education’ to that which requires advanced calculation (stem+l) we can restore the civic society and eliminate the alienation and signal warfare endemic to consumer modernity. If this church, which provides education, also serves the function of consumer banking, savings, and investment, with near-zero interest on durable goods, then we will have restored the ancient order and destroyed the entire network of parasites and rent seekers in academy, finance, and state. We do not need to establish this church. We merely need to provide the economic incentives to do so, and the regulatory law that binds them to the construction of that common good. The most notable exception would be the use of successful retired people in the administration and teaching of these things rather than those who have been insulated from market forces, market competition, and demonstrated market achievement.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1547140855 Timestamp) SHELVING ARCHAIC LANGUAGE: PHILOSOPHY Again, I would simply use the terms existence, category, theory, and paradigm, rather than trying to keep alive heavily loaded archaic terms that have been used and abused in every possible way, such that they only invite frauds. But as usual, the truth provides decidability, where the useful, preferable, and good are not truths (decidable) but choices (utilities, individual and group preferences). Truth provides decidability in matters of conflict between paradigms. The higher the correspondence between perception, cognition, memory, speech, negotiation, action, and cooperation and reality the higher the discount at the expense of ignorance, error, bias, deceits, and frauds. There is no argument to be had that we can defraud ourselves and others for utilitarian and preferential purposes. However, in matters of conflcit we can decide those difference REGARDLESS OF how badly we have invested in those utilities, wants, and frauds. So I take the position that there is only one most parsimonious consistent correspondent and coherent paradigm possible and that this is the object of metaphysics. And that we can use this most parsimonious truth to conduct more directly expensive but more collectively and indirectly rewarding methods of achieving individual and cooperative (and conflicting) means and ends. If not, then metaphysics is merely the study of means of deceit, just as theology is the study of useful deceits, and the systems of measurement are nothing more than the prevention of useful deciets in those cases where they violate reciprocity. As in all things – via negativa and via positiva in competition. We may not know what its true but we know what is false.