Curt Doolittle

Theme: Truth

  • KNOWN CRITICISMS OF THE WORK (repost) It’s not like my work isn’t open to critic

    KNOWN CRITICISMS OF THE WORK

    (repost)

    It’s not like my work isn’t open to criticism. The whole point of doing work in public is to attract criticism in order to improve the work. Friends, followers, and lurkers have been incredibly helpful and contributed significantly to my ‘community’ project: propertarianism.

    The correct criticisms of my work are:

    1 – it’s not published (that’s true).

    2 – it’s not finished in complete enough form that you can understand it without following me for a while. (That’s True.)

    3 – I conflate (not on purpose) metaphysics, epistemology and ethics (decidability), with political advocacy (market government) with the cause of western civilization (aryanism: heroism, truth, promise(contract), sovereignty, rule by voluntary reciprocity, and markets in everything as a consequence). This confuses people. It’s a good criticism.

    4 – Law (decidability) isn’t ‘enough’ for pedagogy (meaning), and people need religion: ritual and myth. (intuition). This is true. But one of my open research questions is this: is nature, history of family, and history of real heroes, and the truth enough if wrapped in ritual and festival? Can we have a ‘religion without lies’. And I think the answer is yes. The problem is, that’s an entirely different scope of work. And I don’t engage in the pragmatism of conflating the via negativa of law (truth) and the via-positiva of education (religion). So in keeping with the competition between via-positiva and via-negativa my intention is to produce two works, the first law, the second, ‘religion’. I have had this intention for a very long time. I don’t see how to avoid it. I had originally intended to incorporate the law in the CENTER of the ‘religious’ prose with fables in the beginning and history at the end. But that would lead to a ridiculously large tome no one could possibly carry around (i’ve tried). It is possible to condense the scientific content into a constitution of Natural Law (‘the law’) and place that in the center between myth and history. And so I might do that (if I live long enough). But I don’t want to conflate using pragmatism, the necessary competition between very clear truth, and very clear wisdom. That would only continue to duplicate the CRIME of the Abrahamists.

    5 – It’s not sufficiently explanatory. Well it is actually and that’s what will horrify you as all your sacred cows are slaughtered without mercy. My work consists of constant relations from physics through sentience. And it’s as dehumanizing as was darwin, copernicus, and aristotle.

    6 – It’s pretty counter-intuitive, and hard to understand, because of the terminology. (this is true. but because I must create a universal language of decidability across all fields of human knowledge, I pulled the best term from each field, deflated it, arranged them in series, and this ‘competition’ caused extraordinary narrowing of meaning ( ergo, vast increases in precision). So just as eliminating the divine from argument to gain greater precision we eliminate conflation from argument to gain greater precision.

    7 – There are no known technical criticisms. The truth is, that I do not know of any technical criticism of my work and I am seriously doubtful that there will exist any such criticisms – ever. It will take you a very long time to understand why. The reason is, that while I am writing in prose form, the thought process I use is procedural testing of relational calculus. (that’s what databases do). Just as I write law in the language of philosophy using the methods of science. It will be very hard to criticize what I have done here. As far as I know it is not possible. And I am an exhaustive analyst.

    But the fact that you don’t understand algebraic geometry, understand formal logic, Understand relational calculus, understand algorithms, or understand testimonialism’s dimensional grammar that depends upon definitions in the form of relational calculus, is just a lack of familiarity with the grammar.

    And I don’t write everything formally. I start with quick sketches, and when I’m done, I should end up with little more than one or more series of dimensional definitions, with all the ‘meaning’ deducible from that set of definitions.

    Once I have that then I iterate on explaining it until I get as close as possible to aphorisms if I am lucky or operational proofs otherwise, and sometimes I just resort to a narrative that make use of the terms in order to provide context.

    In other words, I’m writing PROGRAMS, and text is just inline documentation for definitions that perform functions.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-04 14:34:00 UTC

  • My presumption of best way = continuous competition (empiricism), and continuous

    My presumption of best way = continuous competition (empiricism), and continuous success at competition (dynamic markets), which requires continuous defeat of the red queen (regression to the mean), by continuous improvement of the gene pool (kin group eugenics.)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-03 16:44:00 UTC

  • WHAT’S FICTIONALISM???? 😉

    https://propertarianism.com/2017/03/24/definition-fictionalism/GEE, WHAT’S FICTIONALISM???? 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-02 21:15:00 UTC

  • –“Curt: How Would You Explain Your Beliefs?”—

    https://propertarianinstitute.com/basic-concepts/
    Well, I .. I don’t use the word ‘belief’, because I don’t use the concept of ‘faith’, or the concept of ‘justification’. So I would instead, say “this is my understanding, or this is history as I understand it, or these are my understandings.” (I will explain some other time why resource and opportunity scarcity and lack of agency attract ‘beliefs’ and why resource and opportunity plenty and possession of agency attract ‘understandings’. Or you can ponder that on your own.) Let’s, for the sake of argument, say that: 1. my work consists of completing that thing we call the scientific method, and systematically applying it to the entire scope of human knowledge. 2. My ambition is to eliminate the propagation of falsehoods in the commons – particularly given that we’ve industrialized lying during the past century, and that this means of lying has been designed to undermine our civilization just as were judaism, christianity, and islam in the ancient world, and marxism, boazianism, freudianism, and Frankfurt and postmodern schools in the modern world. 3. my understanding of history is that western civilization evolved not first but fastest because we required a militia in our territory, and as a byproduct of organizing a militia, discovered what we think of today as scientific (or I call ‘testimonial’) truth – and as a consequence, markets in every aspect of life. 4. The rest of my work explains how to evolve our traditional system away from a second dark age, and continue the process of dragging humanity kicking and screaming out of ignorance, superstition, poverty, disease, and lack of agency. In historical context, let’s just say that almost all of the world is only partly through the scientific revolution, and that this will help humanity with understanding the ‘rest of the way’. ITS ALL AVAILABLE If you want an understanding of propertarianism, believe it or not, ‘its all there for the taking’. See … https://propertarianinstitute.com/basic-concepts/ And if you read …. https://propertarianinstitute.com/2016/01/05/an-overview-of-propertarianism-for-serious-newbies/ … which includes a description of history and western civilization’s unique place in it. Then you will have a basic understanding. But this is like learning any other discipline – and is very close to learning a mixture of programming and law. The technical part is quite difficult. But you don’t need to understand it. All you need to understand is that small homogenous nationalist polities operating under what I call ‘perfect government’ will produce the desires of socialists, libertarians, and aristocrats, without providing any of the m with a monopoly that allows them to live parasitically upon the others.
    Mar 30, 2018 12:16pm

  • –“Curt: How Would You Explain Your Beliefs?”—

    https://propertarianinstitute.com/basic-concepts/
    Well, I .. I don’t use the word ‘belief’, because I don’t use the concept of ‘faith’, or the concept of ‘justification’. So I would instead, say “this is my understanding, or this is history as I understand it, or these are my understandings.” (I will explain some other time why resource and opportunity scarcity and lack of agency attract ‘beliefs’ and why resource and opportunity plenty and possession of agency attract ‘understandings’. Or you can ponder that on your own.) Let’s, for the sake of argument, say that: 1. my work consists of completing that thing we call the scientific method, and systematically applying it to the entire scope of human knowledge. 2. My ambition is to eliminate the propagation of falsehoods in the commons – particularly given that we’ve industrialized lying during the past century, and that this means of lying has been designed to undermine our civilization just as were judaism, christianity, and islam in the ancient world, and marxism, boazianism, freudianism, and Frankfurt and postmodern schools in the modern world. 3. my understanding of history is that western civilization evolved not first but fastest because we required a militia in our territory, and as a byproduct of organizing a militia, discovered what we think of today as scientific (or I call ‘testimonial’) truth – and as a consequence, markets in every aspect of life. 4. The rest of my work explains how to evolve our traditional system away from a second dark age, and continue the process of dragging humanity kicking and screaming out of ignorance, superstition, poverty, disease, and lack of agency. In historical context, let’s just say that almost all of the world is only partly through the scientific revolution, and that this will help humanity with understanding the ‘rest of the way’. ITS ALL AVAILABLE If you want an understanding of propertarianism, believe it or not, ‘its all there for the taking’. See … https://propertarianinstitute.com/basic-concepts/ And if you read …. https://propertarianinstitute.com/2016/01/05/an-overview-of-propertarianism-for-serious-newbies/ … which includes a description of history and western civilization’s unique place in it. Then you will have a basic understanding. But this is like learning any other discipline – and is very close to learning a mixture of programming and law. The technical part is quite difficult. But you don’t need to understand it. All you need to understand is that small homogenous nationalist polities operating under what I call ‘perfect government’ will produce the desires of socialists, libertarians, and aristocrats, without providing any of the m with a monopoly that allows them to live parasitically upon the others.
    Mar 30, 2018 12:16pm

  • How Would You Explain Your Beliefs?”— Well, I .. I don’t use the word ‘belief’

    https://propertarianism.com/basic-concepts/–“Curt: How Would You Explain Your Beliefs?”—

    Well, I .. I don’t use the word ‘belief’, because I don’t use the concept of ‘faith’, or the concept of ‘justification’. So I would instead, say “this is my understanding, or this is history as I understand it, or these are my understandings.”

    (I will explain some other time why resource and opportunity scarcity and lack of agency attract ‘beliefs’ and why resource and opportunity plenty and possession of agency attract ‘understandings’. Or you can ponder that on your own.)

    Let’s, for the sake of argument, say that:

    1. my work consists of completing that thing we call the scientific method, and systematically applying it to the entire scope of human knowledge.

    2. My ambition is to eliminate the propagation of falsehoods in the commons – particularly given that we’ve industrialized lying during the past century, and that this means of lying has been designed to undermine our civilization just as were judaism, christianity, and islam in the ancient world, and marxism, boazianism, freudianism, and Frankfurt and postmodern schools in the modern world.

    3. my understanding of history is that western civilization evolved not first but fastest because we required a militia in our territory, and as a byproduct of organizing a militia, discovered what we think of today as scientific (or I call ‘testimonial’) truth – and as a consequence, markets in every aspect of life.

    4. The rest of my work explains how to evolve our traditional system away from a second dark age, and continue the process of dragging humanity kicking and screaming out of ignorance, superstition, poverty, disease, and lack of agency.

    In historical context, let’s just say that almost all of the world is only partly through the scientific revolution, and that this will help humanity with understanding the ‘rest of the way’.

    ITS ALL AVAILABLE

    If you want an understanding of propertarianism, believe it or not, ‘its all there for the taking’.

    See …

    https://propertarianism.com/basic-concepts/

    And if you read ….

    https://propertarianism.com/2016/01/05/an-overview-of-propertarianism-for-serious-newbies/

    … which includes a description of history and western civilization’s unique place in it.

    Then you will have a basic understanding. But this is like learning any other discipline – and is very close to learning a mixture of programming and law.

    The technical part is quite difficult. But you don’t need to understand it. All you need to understand is that small homogenous nationalist polities operating under what I call ‘perfect government’ will produce the desires of socialists, libertarians, and aristocrats, without providing any of the m with a monopoly that allows them to live parasitically upon the others.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-30 12:16:00 UTC

  • Definitions: Science, Scientism, Pseudoscience, Pseudo-rationalism, and Literature.

    THE DEFINITIONS i) SCIENCE: a warranty of due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, and deceit. ii) SCIENTISM : overstating empiricism (correlation), without completing the applicable scope of due diligences, or attempting to apply tests of truth in matters of preference or good. iii) PSEUDOSCIENCE: Testifying to the truth of statements without having performed due diligence against ignorance error, bias, and deceit. iv) PSEUDO-RATIONALISM: Attempts to claim closure where closure does not exist in the logics without appeal to the next higher dimension (empiricism). In other words sophisms, no matter how skilled. Contradictions proposed rarely exist, and almost all questions of philosophy are non-existent bits of fraud due to the use of poor grammar and incomplete sentences. (For example, the liar’s paradox is not operationally possible.) THE ARGUMENT (1) The sciences consist of logical and physical means of falsification in each dimension of possible human action (categorically consistent, internally consistent(logical), externally correspondent(empirical), operationally possible(existential), rational choice(voluntary), reciprocal rational choice(moral), scope-completeness/limits-defined/surviving-parsimony.) (2) the sciences can therefore tell us what is false, and what at present appears to be true (meaning the science allow us to testify to having performed due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, and deceit.) (3) For some reason, we still conflate the logics (tests of constant relations between two or more states, in a set of dimensions), including mathematics (tests of constant positional relations given scale independence) and the deducibility (‘inference’) of relations given the inviolability of those constant relations. Very little of meaning can be said of logic other than it is extremely useful in the falsification of the logical – which is how we use it. Proofs appear to have very little value since given enough time nearly anything can be justified by verbal ‘proof’). (4) Philosophy at present is limited to the exploration and determination of preference (personal), and good (collective). But philosophy has a tragic reputation for nearly universal falsehood outside of those choices. In fact, current philosophy consists largely of self help on one side and a catalog of human errors in intuition on the other. (5) Literature consists of envisioning possible and impossible worlds, for the purpose of exploration, advocacy, and criticism. (6) We tend to conflate literature and logic (philosophy), and conflate History (myth), law (norm), literature (parable), and pseudoscience into theology, just as we inflate literature and reason into philosophy. (7) So while there is value in via positive imaginings (theology, philosophy, mythology) there exists only decidability (conflict resolution) via mathematics, science, history, and reciprocity (law). Ergo, if we must disagree, we must resort only to decidability independent of good or preference. If we seek possibilities, we must resort to literature, myth, and philosophy. Truth can only be produced via-negativa, and choice only by via positiva. Sorry. That’s all there is to the scope of human knowledge. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Definitions: Science, Scientism, Pseudoscience, Pseudo-rationalism, and Literature.

    THE DEFINITIONS i) SCIENCE: a warranty of due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, and deceit. ii) SCIENTISM : overstating empiricism (correlation), without completing the applicable scope of due diligences, or attempting to apply tests of truth in matters of preference or good. iii) PSEUDOSCIENCE: Testifying to the truth of statements without having performed due diligence against ignorance error, bias, and deceit. iv) PSEUDO-RATIONALISM: Attempts to claim closure where closure does not exist in the logics without appeal to the next higher dimension (empiricism). In other words sophisms, no matter how skilled. Contradictions proposed rarely exist, and almost all questions of philosophy are non-existent bits of fraud due to the use of poor grammar and incomplete sentences. (For example, the liar’s paradox is not operationally possible.) THE ARGUMENT (1) The sciences consist of logical and physical means of falsification in each dimension of possible human action (categorically consistent, internally consistent(logical), externally correspondent(empirical), operationally possible(existential), rational choice(voluntary), reciprocal rational choice(moral), scope-completeness/limits-defined/surviving-parsimony.) (2) the sciences can therefore tell us what is false, and what at present appears to be true (meaning the science allow us to testify to having performed due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, and deceit.) (3) For some reason, we still conflate the logics (tests of constant relations between two or more states, in a set of dimensions), including mathematics (tests of constant positional relations given scale independence) and the deducibility (‘inference’) of relations given the inviolability of those constant relations. Very little of meaning can be said of logic other than it is extremely useful in the falsification of the logical – which is how we use it. Proofs appear to have very little value since given enough time nearly anything can be justified by verbal ‘proof’). (4) Philosophy at present is limited to the exploration and determination of preference (personal), and good (collective). But philosophy has a tragic reputation for nearly universal falsehood outside of those choices. In fact, current philosophy consists largely of self help on one side and a catalog of human errors in intuition on the other. (5) Literature consists of envisioning possible and impossible worlds, for the purpose of exploration, advocacy, and criticism. (6) We tend to conflate literature and logic (philosophy), and conflate History (myth), law (norm), literature (parable), and pseudoscience into theology, just as we inflate literature and reason into philosophy. (7) So while there is value in via positive imaginings (theology, philosophy, mythology) there exists only decidability (conflict resolution) via mathematics, science, history, and reciprocity (law). Ergo, if we must disagree, we must resort only to decidability independent of good or preference. If we seek possibilities, we must resort to literature, myth, and philosophy. Truth can only be produced via-negativa, and choice only by via positiva. Sorry. That’s all there is to the scope of human knowledge. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Start with Camus’ question: to answer any question of choice, first answer the q

    Start with Camus’ question: to answer any question of choice, first answer the question of why you do not commit suicide. This tends to prohibit you from cunning falsehoods. So, why do you not commit suicide?

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-29 18:27:56 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/979424936715542529

    Reply addressees: @_Discouraged @LibertyGuy85 @ThomasEWoods @BobMurphyEcon @ComicDaveSmith

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/979424154582691841

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/979424154582691841

  • Lies, are lies are lies and any excuse for lying is just an excuse and nothing m

    Lies, are lies are lies and any excuse for lying is just an excuse and nothing more. Everyone excuses their preferred lie. Largely as a means of avoiding self improvement, rather than avoidance and escape.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-29 18:06:23 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/979419515472826368

    Reply addressees: @_Discouraged @LibertyGuy85 @ThomasEWoods @BobMurphyEcon @ComicDaveSmith

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/979415202767753216

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/979415202767753216