Curt Doolittle

Theme: Truth

  • PROPERTARIANISM WILL ABSOLUTELY HELP YOU DISCOVER INCENTIVES, JUST AS TESTIMONIA

    PROPERTARIANISM WILL ABSOLUTELY HELP YOU DISCOVER INCENTIVES, JUST AS TESTIMONIALS WILL HELP YOU DISCOVER FALSEHOODS.

    —“Incentives are not always easy to identify”—

    I dunno. I can almost always identify them.

    At worst, it’s pretty easy to create a range of possibilities. It takes practice. But we all want to acquire the same things. And we all start from pretty obviously different positions.

    I hate conflict but I can take care of myself. Hence why I have libertarian economic intuitions. ( I have high openness to experience )

    I loathe the priestly (pseudoscientific, pseudo-rational, pseudo-ideal, pseudo-mythical) caste. (Purity)

    And I feel revulsion toward the underclasses on every level (disgust, purity).

    Both of which are a defense of the commons – making me a conservative. (i.e. Masculine reproductive strategy)

    So I favor a conservative (eugenic) social order, but with lots of liberty (opportunity) for experimentation and variation in the status hierarchy.

    We can measure all these things and predict them and they’re all reducible to brain structures.

    We all make excuses to explain what is good when what we mean is that we have a preference.

    – Socialism: Feminine Dysgenic Distributed Consumption,

    – Market Liberalism: Balanced Market of largely meritocratic distribution,

    – Fascism(Nationalism): Masculine Eugenic Concentrated Savings

    Are an the Elephant, and only men are the riders that steer them. Women have necessary reproductive intuitions (Drives) but extremely dangerous political intuitions. Men pretty much have the opposite.

    If we are properly socialized we are compatible. If we are improperly socialized and given political license we are incompatible.

    Americans are improperly socialized.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-09-16 11:06:00 UTC

  • Propertarianism Will Absolutely Help You Discover Incentives, Just As Testimonials Will Help You Discover Falsehoods. &#13

    —“Incentives are not always easy to identify”— I dunno. I can almost always identify them. At worst, it’s pretty easy to create a range of possibilities. It takes practice. But we all want to acquire the same things. And we all start from pretty obviously different positions. I hate conflict but I can take care of myself. Hence why I have libertarian economic intuitions. ( I have high openness to experience ) I loathe the priestly (pseudoscientific, pseudo-rational, pseudo-ideal, pseudo-mythical) caste. (Purity) And I feel revulsion toward the underclasses on every level (disgust, purity). Both of which are a defense of the commons – making me a conservative. (i.e. Masculine reproductive strategy) So I favor a conservative (eugenic) social order, but with lots of liberty (opportunity) for experimentation and variation in the status hierarchy. We can measure all these things and predict them and they’re all reducible to brain structures. We all make excuses to explain what is good when what we mean is that we have a preference. – Socialism: Feminine Dysgenic Distributed Consumption, – Market Liberalism: Balanced Market of largely meritocratic distribution, – Fascism(Nationalism): Masculine Eugenic Concentrated Savings Are an the Elephant, and only men are the riders that steer them. Women have necessary reproductive intuitions (Drives) but extremely dangerous political intuitions. Men pretty much have the opposite. If we are properly socialized we are compatible. If we are improperly socialized and given political license we are incompatible. Americans are improperly socialized.

  • RE: (from previous post) “One does not argue from preferences, beliefs or princi

    RE: (from previous post) “One does not argue from preferences, beliefs or principles but from truth or falsehood, possibility or impossibility, gain or loss, volition or non-volition, reciprocity or non-reciprocity.” —“Are my questions or experience less important because your education level and living standards are better than mine? Does that make me a lesser person because or is my ignorance irrelevant and therefore my principles irrelevant.”– A Friend. I don’t make theological, ideal, or pseudo moral arguments, and that is what you have (unintentionally) done. So… 　 Let me translate your “question” into propertarian language: “I have endeavored to be an ethical and moral man, and therefore born a cost on behalf of the polity, the civilization, and mankind, and therefore I feel reciprocity is due me; and that you owe me a debt and should bear the cost of answering my questions and educating me; and that my concerns should influence other’s actions; and do so despite the fact that I demand my level of knowledge and compliance serve as a means of decidability, rather than some objective measure that is not so dependent upon my levels of knowledge and ability.” Well, in the family that argument works, and in a small organization that might work, but in a polity and across polities there are no such obligations, and questionable value to them. What I said was that one’s self is a measure of nothing true – only one’s ability, ignorance and knowledge. And that arguments to principle, belief, and preference tell us nothing other than “i want…” or “i demand…. in exchange for my cooperation”. And so that instead we ask FIRST whether questions consist of truth or falsehood, possibility or impossibility, gain or loss, volition or non-volition(rational), reciprocity or non-reciprocity(moral). AND THEN determine if they are preferable AFTERWARD. And we search for true, possible, gainful, volitional, and moral answers until we find one that suits one’s preferences – or determine doing so is impossible. And in this search for a true, possible, gainful, volitional, and moral solution, one learns how to discourse truthfully, possibly, gainfully, volitionally, and morally. I would say, that in defense of reciprocity, that if you will discourse honestly with me, then as long as I am not harmed or otherwise deprived of another opportunity more rewarding, then it is not a loss to cooperate with you for your benefit, and perhaps mine – and perhaps the net result might be some (very) minor civic good. And so, given that my present choice is to bang my head on the virtual wall of my current tome in order to determine how to demonstrate that all grammars function as instruments of measurement, I choose to discourse with you, rather than bank my head on the virtual wall – in the hope that it will do some civic (and moral) good. 😉

  • RE: (from previous post) “One does not argue from preferences, beliefs or princi

    RE: (from previous post) “One does not argue from preferences, beliefs or principles but from truth or falsehood, possibility or impossibility, gain or loss, volition or non-volition, reciprocity or non-reciprocity.”

    —“Are my questions or experience less important because your education level and living standards are better than mine? Does that make me a lesser person because or is my ignorance irrelevant and therefore my principles irrelevant.”– A Friend.

    I don’t make theological, ideal, or pseudo moral arguments, and that is what you have (unintentionally) done.

    So…

    Let me translate your “question” into propertarian language: “I have endeavored to be an ethical and moral man, and therefore born a cost on behalf of the polity, the civilization, and mankind, and therefore I feel reciprocity is due me; and that you owe me a debt and should bear the cost of answering my questions and educating me; and that my concerns should influence other’s actions; and do so despite the fact that I demand my level of knowledge and compliance serve as a means of decidability, rather than some objective measure that is not so dependent upon my levels of knowledge and ability.”

    Well, in the family that argument works, and in a small organization that might work, but in a polity and across polities there are no such obligations, and questionable value to them.

    What I said was that one’s self is a measure of nothing true – only one’s ability, ignorance and knowledge. And that arguments to principle, belief, and preference tell us nothing other than “i want…” or “i demand…. in exchange for my cooperation”.

    And so that instead we ask FIRST whether questions consist of truth or falsehood, possibility or impossibility, gain or loss, volition or non-volition(rational), reciprocity or non-reciprocity(moral). AND THEN determine if they are preferable AFTERWARD. And we search for true, possible, gainful, volitional, and moral answers until we find one that suits one’s preferences – or determine doing so is impossible.

    And in this search for a true, possible, gainful, volitional, and moral solution, one learns how to discourse truthfully, possibly, gainfully, volitionally, and morally.

    I would say, that in defense of reciprocity, that if you will discourse honestly with me, then as long as I am not harmed or otherwise deprived of another opportunity more rewarding, then it is not a loss to cooperate with you for your benefit, and perhaps mine – and perhaps the net result might be some (very) minor civic good.

    And so, given that my present choice is to bang my head on the virtual wall of my current tome in order to determine how to demonstrate that all grammars function as instruments of measurement, I choose to discourse with you, rather than bank my head on the virtual wall – in the hope that it will do some civic (and moral) good.

    😉

    Source date (UTC): 2017-09-14 16:57:00 UTC

  • RE: (from previous post) “One does not argue from preferences, beliefs or princi

    RE: (from previous post) “One does not argue from preferences, beliefs or principles but from truth or falsehood, possibility or impossibility, gain or loss, volition or non-volition, reciprocity or non-reciprocity.” —“Are my questions or experience less important because your education level and living standards are better than mine? Does that make me a lesser person because or is my ignorance irrelevant and therefore my principles irrelevant.”– A Friend. I don’t make theological, ideal, or pseudo moral arguments, and that is what you have (unintentionally) done. So… 　 Let me translate your “question” into propertarian language: “I have endeavored to be an ethical and moral man, and therefore born a cost on behalf of the polity, the civilization, and mankind, and therefore I feel reciprocity is due me; and that you owe me a debt and should bear the cost of answering my questions and educating me; and that my concerns should influence other’s actions; and do so despite the fact that I demand my level of knowledge and compliance serve as a means of decidability, rather than some objective measure that is not so dependent upon my levels of knowledge and ability.” Well, in the family that argument works, and in a small organization that might work, but in a polity and across polities there are no such obligations, and questionable value to them. What I said was that one’s self is a measure of nothing true – only one’s ability, ignorance and knowledge. And that arguments to principle, belief, and preference tell us nothing other than “i want…” or “i demand…. in exchange for my cooperation”. And so that instead we ask FIRST whether questions consist of truth or falsehood, possibility or impossibility, gain or loss, volition or non-volition(rational), reciprocity or non-reciprocity(moral). AND THEN determine if they are preferable AFTERWARD. And we search for true, possible, gainful, volitional, and moral answers until we find one that suits one’s preferences – or determine doing so is impossible. And in this search for a true, possible, gainful, volitional, and moral solution, one learns how to discourse truthfully, possibly, gainfully, volitionally, and morally. I would say, that in defense of reciprocity, that if you will discourse honestly with me, then as long as I am not harmed or otherwise deprived of another opportunity more rewarding, then it is not a loss to cooperate with you for your benefit, and perhaps mine – and perhaps the net result might be some (very) minor civic good. And so, given that my present choice is to bang my head on the virtual wall of my current tome in order to determine how to demonstrate that all grammars function as instruments of measurement, I choose to discourse with you, rather than bank my head on the virtual wall – in the hope that it will do some civic (and moral) good. 😉

  • One’s experience is just a matter of ignorance vs knowledge. The truth or falseh

    One’s experience is just a matter of ignorance vs knowledge. The truth or falsehood, possibility or impossibility, gain or loss, volition or non-volition(of others) are all decidable whether you’re ignorant or knowledgeable. Using “principle, belief, or preference” is merely evidence of ignorance, and therefore irrelevance.

  • One’s experience is just a matter of ignorance vs knowledge. The truth or falseh

    One’s experience is just a matter of ignorance vs knowledge. The truth or falsehood, possibility or impossibility, gain or loss, volition or non-volition(of others) are all decidable whether you’re ignorant or knowledgeable.

    Using “principle, belief, or preference” is merely evidence of ignorance, and therefore irrelevance.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-09-14 15:37:00 UTC

  • One’s experience is just a matter of ignorance vs knowledge. The truth or falseh

    One’s experience is just a matter of ignorance vs knowledge. The truth or falsehood, possibility or impossibility, gain or loss, volition or non-volition(of others) are all decidable whether you’re ignorant or knowledgeable. Using “principle, belief, or preference” is merely evidence of ignorance, and therefore irrelevance.

  • TRUTH: OUR MINDFULNESS —“Pushing the truth agenda discards the social one – ev

    TRUTH: OUR MINDFULNESS

    —“Pushing the truth agenda discards the social one – even if it means the social isolation of the source of that truth: the truth-speaker. For the autistic male, this is no dilemma. We keep the crazies outside, sanity and peace inside.”— William L. Benge

    Source date (UTC): 2017-09-14 09:26:00 UTC

  • Truth: Our Mindfulness

    —“Pushing the truth agenda discards the social one – even if it means the social isolation of the source of that truth: the truth-speaker. For the autistic male, this is no dilemma. We keep the crazies outside, sanity and peace inside.”— William L. Benge