Theme: Science

  • Navin Mithel was the first person in my life to understand that all I do at all

    Navin Mithel was the first person in my life to understand that all I do at all times is conduct social science experiments. Until then it never occurred to anyone. They always attribute some other motivation. Which only played into my hand. Because people invariably project upon you those motivations that they would have in your circumstance. And I learned from this. Mostly because I couldn’t even imagine having those motivations.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-19 09:32:00 UTC

  • FIRST TO GET THIS OFF THE TABLE —“I wish I could assume that you are acting in

    FIRST TO GET THIS OFF THE TABLE

    —“I wish I could assume that you are acting in good faith”—

    Well I will tell you how I DO NOT act in good faith:

    I dont have a classroom to experiment on students. I don’t have a research budget, and I dont have graduate students (indentured labor) to conduct experiments for me. What I do have is access to a very inexpensive medium for experimenting with arguments.

    In my process of inquiry, I work very hard to construct conditions under which I can obtain what I consider honest or truthful information, vs reported information.

    I work very had to understand how and why people hold positions, and to test my theories against those positions. So all my arguments are tests. I iterate these tests about ten times before they seem to be fairly good, and then over the next few years refine them until I can state them as aphorisms or series, or something incredibly dense – effectively as verbal proofs. I construct proofs.

    This work requires that I ‘get inside the heads’ of the people who hold these positions, and then reduce those positions to a series of testable criteria (incentives) regardless of position.

    And since I am a philosopher of science, and a falsificationist, I do this by attacking ideas until I see if and how they survive – or not. So I investigated sovereign monarchism, classical liberalism, libertarianism, anarcho capitalism, neoreaction, and now the ‘nazis’ with sympathy to understand them then I attack those ideas to falsify them. And what remains is a set of ‘goods and bads’ from each model.

    In other words, in some ways, because I treat everyone I interact with in business and intellectual life, as a participant in an experiment, I am continually operating under conditions that you might consider disingenuous in the moment but profoundly moral in the end result.

    I learned most of this technique negotiating (i have bought a lot of companies, closed a lot of deals, and done deals that were meritous and some I regret today as immoral. But I see my chief problem in negotiation, simply living in a world full of relative upper class scoundrels, educated imbeciles and underclass zombies, and a middle and working class that appears to consist of the only moral people extant in western society, and they are the ones that least benefit from the current order – because they are being exterminated by it.)

    Now, there are a good number of people who follow me that know exactly what I am doing. And I think it is this form of cunning they appreciate almost as much as the output of my work. But in my world I am literally nothing more than a scientist using verbal experiments to investigate the human mind so that I can construct a body of law that will reverse the beneficiaries of the western order, and restore tehm to the middle and working classes, and save my people and our priceless civilization in doing so.

    So if that ‘disenginuity’ makes me immoral somehow in your world because I am ‘using’ people, when they are voluntarily engaging in these discussions, and I have to do nothing more than stand on the top of the hill and say I’m the king in order to get them to play this very elaborate verbal game, then I think you practice a woman’s morality, rather than a man’s. I take responsibiilty for not only myself, but for my people and for mankind, and I do so by asking people to play a game with me that they wilingly play, are entertained by, and learn from.

    Frankly, if I didn’t have so much respect for you I wouldn’t say this but I know you are a moral man. What actually bothers me is that in my view the cost of dealing with all these shitty selfish people in all these ridiculous niches of political masturbation tires the hell out of me. But just as we must go live among the animals to understand them, and bear the costs and risks of doing so, I must do the same with every shitty immoral, selfish, justificationary, eddy of the human political tidal pool.

    That is the truth as I am most capable at the moment of speaking it.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute


    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-19 09:24:00 UTC

  • I AM A CLASSIST BECAUSE I AM A SCIENTIST AND NO OTHER OPTION SURVIVES

    I AM A CLASSIST BECAUSE I AM A SCIENTIST AND NO OTHER OPTION SURVIVES.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-17 13:45:00 UTC

  • PROPERTARIAN NATURAL LAW: EMPIRICAL NOT RATIONAL —“I would say that your use o

    PROPERTARIAN NATURAL LAW: EMPIRICAL NOT RATIONAL

    —“I would say that your use of the term Natural Law, as opposed to the former englightment thinkers, is empirical (as opposed to their rational.) They used it to describe a set of innately known or knowable rules of moral behaviour. You are using it to describe a set of discovered rules which are necessary for cooperation.”—-Ivan Ilakovac


    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-15 05:50:00 UTC

  • “I am an Epicurean, I can neither admit God to my science, nor deny people (myse

    —“I am an Epicurean, I can neither admit God to my science, nor deny people (myself included) the consolation of religion. I guess I’m a hypocrite because I am not strong like a Cynic, and enjoy pleasurable things too much to claim Stoicism.”— Mike Herrin


    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-13 21:10:00 UTC

  • DEFINITION: NATURE That which exists and changes state according to available op

    DEFINITION: NATURE

    That which exists and changes state according to available operations imposed by the physical laws of the universe, independent of the mind or actions of man. In other words, existence free of imagination, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, psueoscience and deceit.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-13 16:10:00 UTC

  • DEFINITION: SCIENCE: “The elimination of imaginary information from our statemen

    DEFINITION: SCIENCE:

    “The elimination of imaginary information from our statements of observation.”

    Science: via-negativa: the elimination of imagination, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, pseudoscience, or deceit.

    The rest is ample curiosity, patience, discipline, hard work, and tool-making – whether those tools are cognitive and logical, or physical and measurable.

    As the scale of our inquiry decreases to the small, or increases to the large, or peers into the past, or into the future, or into the fast, or into the slow, we must reduce that which we cannot perceive and compare to that which we can perceive and compare.

    That process is largely a constituted in the development of logical and physical instrumentation by which we can sense and perceive and compare that which we cannot without the assistance of logical or physical instrumentation.

    In other words, Science consists in that discipline under which we struggle to distill the truth from the results of free association within our imaginations (and the imaginations of others).

    Curt Doolittle


    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-13 14:06:00 UTC

  • Aristotle invented what we call science today:” the elimination of imaginary inf

    Aristotle invented what we call science today:” the elimination of imaginary information from our statements of observation.”

    It took through the Machiavelli to develop it in social science. It took until Bacon to develop it in general use. It took until darwin and maxwell to remove most of the remaining uses. I’m just removing it from psychology, sociology, group evolutionary strategy, and law. The problem for most thinkers in the past was the conflation of mathematics and platonism, and the conflation of reason and supernaturalism. Once deflated we are left with states, transformations, and the operations required to conduct those transformations: recipes. All else is some version of history, literature, and mythology. The reason we require myth, literature, and history, is because it takes very little cognitive power or knowledge to understand myth (cartoonish hyperbole for the purpose of reducing experience), literature (analogy to experience), and history (reduction of complexity beyond direct experience).

    It doesn’t matter what similar errors they made – they were men of their time. it matters that between Augustine, Plato, and Aristotle, we obtained theological, platonic, and scientific traditions, which roughly match the cognitive abilities of our classes. We can easily categorize all thought as deflationary and true, conflationary and analogical, or conflationary and false (deceptive).

    What matters is that one cannot argue truthfully only meaningfully across them, and decidability is ALWAYS provided by the scientific.

    So, we have decidabile and true on one end, meainginful and allegorical in the middle, and deceitful and supernatural on the opposite end.

    Decidable/True — Meaningful/Allegorical — Deceitful/False

    deduciblity —————- inference —————– misdirection


    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-13 13:22:00 UTC

  • ***Christianity can be taught as myth, while removing the falsehoods by stating

    ***Christianity can be taught as myth, while removing the falsehoods by stating that it is myth and parable not history and truth.***

    —“All science relies on metaphor. The science of wisdom is no different. Metaphor and allegory contain truths in tangible terms that can be readily understood and applied. The problems are not so much with the group (church) but with the leaders (priests) who, given sufficient authority, seek greater means of control over the group. Lies are the means of control and control is necessary for ‘steering’ in a given direction. This is only necessary because the individuals of whom the group is comprised lack self-control…and, so, back to the message….a self-referencing feed-back loop.”— Lesley Keys


    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-12 17:40:00 UTC

  • There is a very big difference between Jewish positive law (wisdom) and european

    There is a very big difference between Jewish positive law (wisdom) and european negative law (logical and empirical). Natural Law=Science.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-11 17:02:42 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/830462075667378177