Curt Doolittle

Theme: Truth

  • Reading Kant from my current vantage point and seeing that his mental model is h

    Reading Kant from my current vantage point and seeing that his mental model is hermeneutic interpretation of scripture and he is trying to transition from the supernatural ideal, to the secular ideal, but either cannot or cannot imagine how to speak in the real. Which anglo law would have taught him. Hume on the other hand expressly tries the existential method and succeeds. Hume is a scientist – an aristotelian. Kant is a n idealist – a platonist. He reads childishly to me now, where he read obscurely in the past. And it is increasingly obvious why the marxists and postmodernists ran to him for cover.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-20 17:31:00 UTC

  • NO, DECEPTION ISN’T NECESSARY @ Mea Culba I do make sense of what you are trying

    NO, DECEPTION ISN’T NECESSARY

    @ Mea Culba

    I do make sense of what you are trying to say, but all I see is that you defend a prior intuition that you understand not that you describe a good or a necessity, and it is not clear at all you can make a rational choice without choosing between the alternatives.

    A man does not study comparative theology, philosophy or literature without studying that which conflicts with it. I have taken it upon myself to eradicate all falsehood no matter how comforting and to question whether all goods can be produced without falsehood. And since they can, there is no need for falsehood.

    And while I realize less developed cultures and states (those with less influence of commerce and law and greater influence norm and religion) cannot imagine that it is possible to create a high-roman or high-anglo-saxon order in the absence of falsehood the fact of the matter is that the only controlling factors are (a) demographic: elimination of the underclass, and (b) the scope of suppression of falsehood under the law. All else follows.

    If you have a judiciary and a military (police/sheriff/militia) that will do as it is commanded by the judiciary then the judiciary in fact serves as a cult of truth and the various religions serve as cults of lies. It is this competition between meritocratic and hierarchical law and non-meritocratic equalitarian deception (religion) that describes the past 2500 years or more.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-20 08:27:00 UTC

  • PROPERTARIAN REVOLUTION IS AS HUMILIATING AS THE DARWINIAN When the general phil

    PROPERTARIAN REVOLUTION IS AS HUMILIATING AS THE DARWINIAN

    When the general philosophical, social scientific, and legal communities figure out that I’ve ended the debate on the ‘nature’ of man. That our nature is entirely acquisitive, and tediously mechanical. And that consciousness is not required at all for that acquisition. And the degree to which our conscious minds exist is almost entirely for the purpose of negotiation with other humans. And that all our storytelling is for the purpose of negotiation. And that all communication produces just another competitive market. And that through this market we collectively ‘calculate’ our evolutionary path without ‘consciousness’. And that because we are capable of deceit, and deceit is a discount, then this market contains true and eugenic as well as false and dysgenic marketing and advertising information. And that all our subsequent markets for association, reproduction, production, and polities are but an extension of this single system of negotiation between genders and ages and abilities – in that order. And that we can quite easily reduce our speech to description and truth, or promotion and suggestion, or advocacy and deceit. And moreover that by use of ordinary law we can limit all political speech in the market for commons and polities, just as we limit all commercial speech in the market for reproduction and production. And that we can do so relatively easily. Then it will make the humility of the Copernican, Darwinian, and Einsteinian revolutions pale by comparison. But thankfully, it will have as great an effect on increasing the velocity of our cooperation by the reduction of ignorance, error, bias, and deceit as did the development of empiricism. Because as humiliating as it is to realize our consciousness – which we experience as a conflation of sensations, memories, and emotions – is entirely unnecessary. It’s largely a cost we bear in order to create and identify pretenses and falsehoods as a means of cheating our way up the evolutionary ladder.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-20 07:13:00 UTC

  • Wise and Smart a few mathematicians appear to be smarter than the smartest of al

    Wise and Smart

    a few mathematicians appear to be smarter than the smartest of all other disciplines. And while they may speak in nonsense now and then, this art remains the most demonstrated because failure is so visible.

    a few philosophers appear to be wiser than the wisest of all other disciplines, but most are mere authors of fantasy literature and word puzzles, and their discipline is largely nonsense. And failure is almost universal.

    a few jurists appear to be both smart and wise, but their record is not very good. Justice is a cult as much as a craft – and we must return it to an empirical science.

    a few few physical scientists appear to be smarter than all that remain, but their discipline is largely a craft.

    a few engineers appear to be both smart and wise, but wiser than most disciplines. And while they may speak pragmatically and skeptically at times, it is because failure is both visible and costly.

    I won’t talk about economists. And we will just laugh at social scientists.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-19 11:32:00 UTC

  • Prof. Daniel Burston is merely using Peterson as a jumping board for shallow sel

    Prof. Daniel Burston is merely using Peterson as a jumping board for shallow self promotion and creating a typical postmodern straw man by claiming inconsistency via nietzsche where peterson doesn’t make it. In other words, he’s stating that Peterson is using an appeal to authority and claims of general authoritative truth rather than an innovator that had both correct and incorrect insights – as do all thinkers.

    PETERSON’S INSIGHT IS THE CORRELATION BETWEEN BRAIN STRUCTURE AND CHEMISTRY, THE MONOMYTH, AND THE MYTHS

    Peterson does a number of less than perfect things. But (a) he is restoring stoicism (self authoring), (b) he is restoring myth as wisdom literature using the universal Monomyth>Archetypes>Plots>Virtues system, (c) he is illustrating that this set of teaching virtues by myth maps to personality traits, and how those traits map to brain chemistry and structures.

    WHAT DOES “GETTING IT RIGHT” MEAN TO PETERSON? CORRESPONDENCE AND COHERENCE.

    Peterson uses the term “got it right” when picking insights from different thinkers, and he lauds those with deep insight and literary talent in expression of them. But when he says “got it right” he is referring to an insight that mirrors both the findings cognitive science and the expression of that cognitive science in the

    Furthermore the authority on the subject is Hicks. And It’s flawless. Which I’m happy to argue with anyone. From a purely technical standpoint, the argumentative structure originates in France as moral literature. Is reformed by Kant into rationalism and then the German Continental line. Is reformed by Marx (boaz, freud, cantor, lenin, trotsky, mises, rothbard, strauss) into pseudoscience. And was reformed by the french again into moral literature(Derrida,Foucault), then into pseudo-rationalism (philosophy without truth, Rorty etc.). But the technique has been the same whether in judaism, christianity, islam, marxism, feminism, postmodernism: Literary, pseudo-scientific, pseudo-rational.

    But never deflationary truth: What we call “Science”.

    While we did develop Darwin, Menger, Weber, Durkheim, Pareto, Poincare, Hilbert, Maxwell, Einstein, Spencer, and Nietzsche, and Hayek. Despite mises, brouwer in math and bridgman in physics, and various thinkers in Law, the Operational(Intuitionistic) revolution failed except in the physical sciences. We failed to continue the enlightenment into the social sciences and prevent the counter-enlightenemnts of the abrahamists (fundamentalists, marxists, feminists, postmodernists).

    We were not able to solve social science without cognitive science, genetics, the failures of the postwar attempt at spreading democracy, the failure of communism, socialism, and the great society programs. And the failure of social democracy in those civilizations without accumulated genetic (higher Iq) and cultural (high trust) assets.

    TESTING PETERSON AND HICKS

    My analytic technique requires that we examine the method of argument – whether it is stated via deflation, conflation, or fictionalism, whether it’s scientifically true or not, and then I determine the changes that occur in the state of all existentially possible forms of capital, and whether those changes were voluntary or not.

    So I circumvent ‘meaning’ entirely. In other words, I perform an accounting audit of the arguments. And his arguments hold. Sorry. Rock solid.

    PETERSON’S ONE TROUBLING TOLERANCE

    I would like to correct Peterson on simply one point: that our deception by marxism and postmodernism it is precisely abrahamic use of supernatural literature as in Judaism, christianity, and islam) to deceive and manufacture impediments to knowledge by method of conflation, overloading, suggestion, and ‘fictionalism’ (confusing the real and the ideal and the supernatural). And providing a means of producing an addiction response through ritual and prayer. All off which appear to cause catastrophic harm to all civilizations that adopt abrahamic deception by suggestion and addiction.

    So, by tolerating abrahamic myths – any myths reliant upon fictionalism (conflation of supernatural, ideal, real; myth and history, wisdom and law) – Peterson is leaving open the door for abrahamic art of lying without which judaism, christianity, islam, marxism, and postmodernism cannot survive.

    So, while I have a technical criticism of his work, as far as I know he’s largely on the right track, and his criticisms are correct.

    CLOSING: THE HARSH REALITY OF WESTERN SUCCESS: TRUTH, MARKETS(Meritocracy) AND EUGENICS/

    As far as I know, Peterson is reliant upon a combination of cognitive science and literary science, to use parables to inform for success and diagnose for unhappiness. And this is the traditional role of pagan myth. THe fact that parables make use of ‘external observer’ effect and convey every dimension of reality as do all stories, is something that should be of obviously anyone with experience in therapeutic psychology, knowledge of the function of therapeutic hallucinogens, the art of suggestion, or artificial intelligence.

    Why? We are suggestible in when fire gazing and listening to stories because of the effect of the suspension of disbelief. By visualization via narrative analogy we can experience in the first, second or third person, that which we might feel pain in analyzing within ourselves.

    It was only with abrahamism that the method of teaching and curing was weaponized against the underclasses in order to rally them against the aristocracy. It had a not insignificant role in the destruction of ancient civilization, and it is having a current highly significant role in destroying the modern civilization.

    Why? Man was not oppressed. Man was and remains a beast that was first self domesticated ingroup, then forcibly domesticated by more domesticated outgroups by the combination of agrarian discipline, harsh winters, upward redistribution of reproduction, constraint on reproduction, delayed reproduction, aggressive exposing, sacrificing, hanging, burning,plague , illness, starvation, and war.

    And the distribution of prosperity today is determined by the success or failure at that reduction of the scale of the underclass that has not yet been sufficiently domesticated for autonomous, responsible, participation in modernity.

    Western man’s failing is the promotion of abrahamic underclass values via democracy and equality, rather than the origins and success of western civilization in truth, rule of law (non-discretionary rule. rule without rulers), Markets in everything – the consequence of which is incremental eugenics through upward redistribution of reproduction.

    And that is the difference between the honesty of the ancient world, and the ongoing deception of the modern.

    We are unequal. And our inequality is manageable, as long as we continue to shrink the size of the undomesticated lower classes until they are gone. After that we may find that our definition of lower classes may incrementally evolve. But at present it appears that there is a maximum human capacity around an average of 115-120, which means that we were close to optimum in the west before the industrial revolution. And that we have lost as much as a full standard deviation in average intelligence in less than 150 years.

    And if rates of immigration and reproduction continue, we will have reduced humanity to barbarism once again before the end of the century.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-19 09:25:00 UTC

  • Again, cherry picking. Data is data is data

    Again, cherry picking. Data is data is data.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-18 19:32:22 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/887394636335124480

    Reply addressees: @BaruchKogan @Yisro_Reuel @EOTOverton

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/887388404236812290

    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/887388404236812290

  • WHAT IS PHILOSOPHY? A thing must be defined by what it is not, just as much as w

    WHAT IS PHILOSOPHY?

    A thing must be defined by what it is not, just as much as what it is, or we find people using a vague similarity as a means of either cherry picking from similar things or claiming the persuasive ability of truth content that is not present.

    As far as I know:

    There is a great difference between:

    – the true, the good, the preferable, the useful, the possible, and the not possible.

    1) Science(Truth) = the search for decidability independent of domain, individual, or group.

    2) Philosophy(Goodness) = search for decidability within a domain within a group regardless of whether it is true.

    3) Ideology(Preference) = search for allies in pursuit of a preference within a group, regardless of whether it is good or true.

    4) Technique(Utility) = the search for utility and possibility, regardless of self, or others, and regardless of preference, goodness, or truth.

    And I think it is very hard for other definitions to survive this test.

    In fact, I think it is very hard to claim other definitions are other than something between a deception and a fallacy.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-18 12:24:00 UTC

  • YOU DON’T DEBATE AN INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST PERSON, YOU PROSECUTE HIM. (and fur

    YOU DON’T DEBATE AN INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST PERSON, YOU PROSECUTE HIM.

    (and further criticisms of abrahamism)

    —“If I organized a debate between you and Jared Howe would you do it?”—

    Well, you know, I spent a whole day on the guy, and (a) he didn’t read anything much I posted, (b) he clearly didn’t understand it if he did, (c) I am not sure he understands himself what he’s saying (d) he resorted to simple chanting accusations without demonstrating how they applied to my argument, (e) he blocked me when it became increasingly difficult for him to not answer.

    Now add to that (f) that it is pretty hard to write and read analytic philosophy because it’s turgid, and it’s harder to speak it and listen to it. And add (g) the audience will much more easily be bored with long chains of reasoning.

    But you know, there are psychological reasons people favor kantian rationalism, just as there are reasons people favor theology. One of those reasons is preservation of cognitive investment. The other is that while science (what I do) doesn’t allow you to ignore any argument, rationalism (what jared does) allows you to ignore many arguments, and theology allows you to ignore any argument. Kant was trying to recreate theology in secular verse, and this was his reason: to resist the scientific revolution.

    So I think if you asked me to debate hoppe on it, then we would show something important to the community. I think if you asked me to debate david gordon or walter block maybe. Because then the audience could follow. But none of them will debate me. They know better. And they cannot afford defloration in public.

    So it’s not so much I wouldn’t do it, as I am not sure he’s capable of the argument, or intellectually honest enough to engage in it.

    So when you ask me to debate him, I would enter a debate, but I would end up being a prosecutor: “If everything you say can be explained with science but you cannot explain everything sciences says with what you say? Why do you employ such a system of thought? Why is it you fear science just as theologian fears science?” The answer is because, kant reformed abrahamic lying from supernatural to ideal. Just as marx,boaz,freud reformed abrahamic lying from the ideal to the pseudoscientific. Just as the french(rousseau, Derrida) reformed pseudoscientific to outright fiction: reality by chanting.

    Mises applied the same pseudoscientific reasoning as marx did he just chose different half truths in order to reform marx when marx ended failing. Marx had stopped writing after he read the marginalists because his labor theory of value was now dead. Mises updated marx by inverting universal common property ignoring externalities to universal private property to the exclusion of common property ignoring externalities. He did so by abandoning the labor theory of value for the mengerian subjective value, and abandoning the universal underclass strategy in favor of universal middle class strategy. He replaced the pseudoscience of the labor theory of value, and ignoring the darwinian revolution with the pseudoscience of (a) casting science as justificationary(constructive) rather than critical (subtractive), (b) conflating axiomatic(necessary) mathematics with theoretic science (contingent). (c) conflating truth(science) and morality(volition). Which is precisely the technique used by the abrahamists: conflating myth with history, advice with command, wisdom with law, dysgenia with good.

    This does not mean marx and mises did not contribute to intellectual history. it just means like everything else Abrahamists do, it’s cherry-picking of half truths and half deceits, wrapped in exceptional mythological storytelling so that through overloading people can be ‘convinced’ by suggestion when they intuit that it’s reasonable. When in fact, the purpose of the argument structure is to bypass all reason. Suggestion is just ‘hacking’ the brain. And that is the purpose of Abrahamism: deceit.

    FWIW: You can tell everything about an individual or group or civilization by their definition of truth. And in particular, whether that truth employs the fictional(supernatural), the cognitive(analytic), the ideal(logical), the empirical(existential), or the operational(actionable), or all of the above.

    -Curt Doolittle

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-18 09:00:00 UTC

  • PROPERTARIANISM FOR HOPPEIANS In simplest terms I translated hoppe’s “kantian ju

    PROPERTARIANISM FOR HOPPEIANS

    In simplest terms I translated hoppe’s “kantian justificationism” into anglo scientific terms, and in doing so completed the scientific method, uniting science, philosophy, morality, and law. Its uniting these fields by explaining the proper function of praxeology that is the innovation.

    The primary difference is that i show that you can’t produce a libertarian commune so to speak, and instead have to produce a full scale political order under ‘natural law of reciprocity’ where property rights apply to any demonstrated investment no matter how abstract.

    Therefore you cannot ‘exit’ to create a condition of liberty, you must conquer and hold territory in the market for territories against all possible competition and this requires you produce an economy capable of producing the means of doing so. And that economy will always look something like a parliamentary monarchy except with purely empirical natural law.

    In other words, you can only get liberty by permission and you can only get sovereignty by force.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-17 22:01:00 UTC

  • GRADUATE COURSE IN EPISTEMOLOGY – CLASS TWO – BOOM! (continuing with testimonial

    GRADUATE COURSE IN EPISTEMOLOGY – CLASS TWO – BOOM!

    (continuing with testimonialism’s synthesis of science, philosophy, morality and law)

    —“Denying apriorism whilst simultaneously making a priori truth claims = hopelessly confused.”—

    Actually, ah, but that’s not what I did, right? I deflated Kant to unite science, philosophy, morality and law and the techniques of deceptive argument by claims of distinctions without a difference that were used by the marxists-postmodernists, rothbardians and straussian neocons. (Which is what others will tell you.)

    (In other words, I ‘hardened’ philosophy by uniting it with science and law.)

    I said:

    – That analytic truth(thought), ideal truth(words), “testimonial truth”or existentially possible truth(actions) describe a spectrum of increasing differences in information between the statement and reality.

    – That all a priori statements are special cases of the single theoretical method that encompasses all of conceivable and actionable reality.

    – That Reality consists of a number of actionable dimensions, and that the various statements of a priori reasoning reflected the most simple of those dimensions.

    – That we can test each dimension of reality for consistency.

    – That any test of any dimension consistency requires appealing to the test of at least the next dimension, and that any test of reality requires appealing to the full set of dimensions of reality.

    – That survival of each dimensional test does not determine that the statement is true, but that it is non false within the scope of the limits defined.

    – That because of causal density, the application of economic theories can describe trends but not cases.

    – That we cannot know a subset of cases will follow the general rule without investigation.

    – That all not only can all cases not be determined, or not all trends be observable, but that all economic phenomenon cannot be and have not been discovered by deduction but by empirical observation (ie: sticky prices), because much economic phenomenon is beyond our perceptions without measurements.

    – That the predictability of economic phenomenon is (likely) determined by symmetries within intermediary states (in math “lie groups”) and that these are not deducible without empirical observation due to the limits of the human mind to model. But that once modeled will be understandable by the human mind.

    – That this epistemological method will apply even with the addition of new dimensions (which is the likely consequence of the current mathematical and physical investigation into symmetries. Symmetries we cannot conceive of. But once observed we can operationally explain.

    OR AS POPPER TOLD US:

    All knowledge of the world is temporal and contingent. All scientific investigation is social and moral.

    OR AS I’M STATING MORE COMPLETELY

    All knowledge of the world is temporal and contingent, and demand for completeness of truth claims is in fact nothing but demand for warranty of due diligence given the the externalities of the display, speech or action.

    THE LAW

    The ‘Law’ of the Analytic(thought), Ideal(word), Real(action), Reasonable(choice), Moral(reciprocal):

    – Analytic: i can or cannot think that.

    – Ideal:I think I can or cannot say that.

    – Real:I claim I can or cannot do that.

    – Reasonable: I can or cannot but would or would not do that.

    – Moral: I would or would not do that, but I should or should not do that.

    HOW CAN WE REDUCE THIS TO GENERAL RULES?

    (a) All non trivial statements about the reality require prior experience.

    (b) All non trivial propositions are contingent.

    (c) All non trivial tests of dimensional consistency are incomplete

    (d) These statements are all contingent.

    (e) All statements we know how to make are contingent, because all knowledge is contingent.

    (f) All display, speech, action, and externality

    CLOSING

    In other words, I eliminated the special pleading intended by, and made possible by kant by the mandation of ignorance, as a resistance against the tide of science. Which is why Rothbard used rationalism, just as abrahamic religious dogma was used: to place artificial constraints on our actions by placing artificial constraints on our reason.

    FWIW

    I use people like you as educational foils. Because while I understand that these advances are probably too difficult for you, they are not too difficult for everyone, and these conversations function as advertising and marketing by which I can locate those who CAN understand such things (likely because of a combination of education and intelligence). And what we have come to understand over the past few years, is that one generally must have an understanding of the methods of the sciences as well as economics, if not learned from computer science the difference between mathematics (arithmetic operations), logic (set operations), programming (algorithmic operations). The reason being, that algorithmic operations must be informationally complete, and training the human mind to think by decidability (informational sufficiency) rather than choice (informational possibility) is rather challenging.

    THUS ENDETH THE LESSON.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-17 20:07:00 UTC