Curt Doolittle

Theme: Truth

  • I want a high trust, moral, ethical, and truthful, and redistributive society. A

    I want a high trust, moral, ethical, and truthful, and redistributive society. And I want room for all the wacky people in this world. They’re a luxury good. I want the ability for the left coasts to do as they will, the heartland as they will. And every variation in between. And I see no reason for continent-wide cultural monopoly that creates conflcit now boiling into hatred, and soon in to civil war. And most importantly, what I don’t want is the continued erosion of Rule of Law, Juridical Law making, and pervasive lying in government, and so I want to wreck it and start over – so we can have both. There are good ways and bad ways of doing things and oppression of one another is not a good way. The constitution was designed to require us to preserve at the state level our differences, and only the common at the federal level. Unfortunately the civil war ended our constitution. But, that said, now that the land grasp of the western continent is over, there is no reason NOT to Devolve the fed. So, let us diversify the culture. And may the best men win.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-30 19:52:00 UTC

  • YOUR ‘OPERATIONAL’ DEFINITION IS ‘PERSONAL’. (meaning, subjective nonsense) (oh

    YOUR ‘OPERATIONAL’ DEFINITION IS ‘PERSONAL’.

    (meaning, subjective nonsense) (oh the irony)

    Necessary definitions are what we call ‘truth’ statements. It is what it is. They are what they are. And yes I do need to do it. It’s my job: Sanitizing the informational commons. And exposing those who make excuses for people who conflate personal experiential emotions in the ignorance of possibility, cost, and consequence, possibility with aggregate possibility, cost, and consequence in order to promote and conduct thefts via the violence of government is one of the most moral services a man can provide to his people.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-29 14:54:00 UTC

  • HOW TO ASK CURT TO EXPLAIN ‘GIBBERISH’ (DENSE) ARGUMENTS – AND WHY THEY ARE DENS

    HOW TO ASK CURT TO EXPLAIN ‘GIBBERISH’ (DENSE) ARGUMENTS – AND WHY THEY ARE DENSE IN THE FIRST PLACE

    —“Regarding: “I will venture you do not understand the necessary meaning of politics rather than the conventional,” You are babbling gibberish as always. What does this sentence mean?”— Joseph Nerevar

    It’s not gibberish, its very dense, but thank you for asking.

    In the future, the ‘gentlemanly’ way to ask a question is:

    “Curt can you *unpack* that sentence or paragraph for me?”

    Necessary, vs academic, vs traditional, vs normative, vs colloquial language. By necessary I refer to ‘what it can mean’ versus what we mean academically, traditionally, normatively, or colloqually.

    The principle function of Testimonialism (the funny way I talk) is to speak in very precise language so that you can’t fool yourself (or others) into thinking you know what you’re talking about (or lying).

    We use a particular technique when defining terms, that is a bit complicated for me to repeat here. But just as I listed Necessary, academic, traditional, normative and colloquial above as a *series* of terms, when we use any term we create a series (list) that includes it, and then we define each term as a series of human actions (and decisions) using a particularly rigid grammar (sentence structure, and vocabulary), where we list what states of property people are trying to change, and whether they are doing so honestly and truthfully or not, and what degree of precision they are using (scientific to literary to supernatural for example). The end product is a very clear set of definitions that cannot be used to ‘hide’ attempted thefts (or frauds or whatever).

    In the case of ‘politics’, we use this word in an ancient sense, but conflate it (mix it up in colloquial language) as if it’s a catch-all for ‘stuff related to government. What politics means of necessity (scientifically), is a means by which groups organize to construct commons (territory, capital, organizations, goods, services, information and institutions).

    But what groups? Groups that have the choice to organize a MARKET for the production of commons, or a deciding body that does so, or a dictator that does so?

    The west made use of markets for the production of commons at different scales – almost always locally, and as often as possible in government. We made markets in everything: association, cooperation, reproduction, production, production of commons, production of the resolution of disputes (law), production of polities, and war.

    How many other civilizations used politics (markets?) in everything? And why is it that we developed reason, a science of politics, common law, republicanism and democracy, and why are those methods almost unique to the west?

    Politics: the operations of a market for construction of commons.

    Rule is something else altogether.

    Ergo, where we use the word Politics, other civilizations use Rule. And we do not ourselves even understand the necessary meaning of the word that we use.

    Hence why democracy has been conducted as a war on rule of law, in order to end the market for the construction of commons, and replace it, like all other civilizations have, with discretionary rule.

    CLOSING

    So you see, what you ‘hear’ as gibberish is a scientific language, but because you are used to speaking morally (intuitively) about these subjects, you hear this very technical method of argument and react to it, where if we were talking about chemistry or physics, or mathematics, or epistemology, you would simply accept that they are terms that you don’t know.

    I speak, and those who follow me learn to speak, in truthful (scientific) language, where meanings are precise, just like any other professional discipline.

    Now …. do you expect me to write this kind of detail in every argument that I make, or do I have your permission to speak in dense language for those who grasp it, and leave open the opportunity for explanation for those who are curious but lack the knowledge to comprehend it on their own?

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-29 12:35:00 UTC

  • I’m on the side of Poincare and Brouwer (and to some degree Hilbert) that cantor

    I’m on the side of Poincare and Brouwer (and to some degree Hilbert) that cantor was influential in expanding mathematical fictionalism (platonism), and thereby preventing the reformation of mathematics ( and philosophy) that we saw in the sciences.

    This remains unfortunate, since any statement of mathematical fictionalism (platonism) can be stated scientifically (operationally) and therefore these fictions are not only unnecessary but impeded the teaching of math and to some degree pollute the other fields.

    Now, for a person trained in mathematics (measurement), this is all very difficult to understand, just as to a philosopher trained in rationalism (non-contradiction) it is very difficult to understand, just as a theologian trained in idealism it is very difficult to understand. We all make excuses for useful fictions.

    However, the consequences of useful fictions to humanity is cumulatively profound (expensive).

    In fact, I am increasingly convinced that the ‘set’ movement from the 1800’s to the present is not only unnecessary, but harmful on a scale that is unimaginable to all but a few. As Popper said there are not only sources of knowledge, but sources of ignorance, and when we had the opportunity to deflate mathematics and convert it from a philosophy to a science, we failed.

    This tragedy becomes more obvious once we realize that according to Bridgman, we might have had an Einstein a century earlier if mathematics had not be mired in platonism (fictionalism).

    In my work, I’m increasingly aware that the rise of pseudoscientific economics, our failure to develop strictly constructed law, the loss of a century in philosophy, and the expansion of pseudoscience in physics (multiple worlds), are caused by the failure of mathematics – the most basic (simple) and therefore innovative of the logics – to reform.

    Magic is still with us. The enlightenment remains unfinished.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-28 06:28:00 UTC

  • Now, I can train people to solve for true rather than for good. But like anythin

    Now, I can train people to solve for true rather than for good. But like anything else it takes a hell of a lot of repetition to develop intuitions that favor the true rather than the (false) good.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-27 18:36:00 UTC

  • it’s almost impossible for even the most dedicated of people to switch from thin

    it’s almost impossible for even the most dedicated of people to switch from thinking in terms of good, to thinking in terms of true. If you use natural law as your means of decidability, then that which is true will in fact always be a good. But only the market can decide if it is a preferred good. You can’t. No matter how hard you try. So try to determine if something is true not good. Any ‘good’ you can imagine will be subjectively decided based upon some outcome you prefer. Whereas natural law will merely ensure that we select preferences that produce goods regardless of what we imagine.

    Its all just math at this point.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-27 18:35:00 UTC

  • EXERCISE: Fiction vs Fictionalism What separates fiction from fictionalism? Fict

    EXERCISE: Fiction vs Fictionalism

    What separates fiction from fictionalism?

    Fictionalism is constructed with at least these techniques:

    1 – pseudo-science,

    2 – pseudo-rationalism,

    3 – pseudo-history, and

    4 – pseudo-mythology(Religion).

    And each technique includes three tools:

    a) a lie

    b) an obscurantism

    c) a conflation

    Can you give an example of each technique, and the tools used to construct it?

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-27 12:04:00 UTC

  • (Just to counsel those who don’t know, misquoting, fabricating quotes, or writin

    (Just to counsel those who don’t know, misquoting, fabricating quotes, or writing fictional quotes, as long as they appear parody, satire, or fiction, is protected under law. Personally I see all talk whether overzealous or complimentary, or critical or ridiculing, as free advertising, and a measure of success – since those who can make arguments do, and those who can’t admit defeat by retreating into parody, satire, and ridicule. And while I love that people come to my defense, the chatter that actually bothers me is the overzealous. So don’t sweat it. It’s all good. – Cheers ; )

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-27 09:58:00 UTC

  • I think I get it. Its easier to have a truthful discussion about man with german

    I think I get it. Its easier to have a truthful discussion about man with germans, and easier to have a legal discussion with americans. But but americans are too utopian about man to talk truthfully about man, and germans to utopian about government to talk truthfully about law.

    “The British are too polite to be honest, and the Germans are too honest to be polite.”– h/t: RainHard Pitschke

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-26 08:26:00 UTC

  • How Do We Communicate Ideas with Fiction but Not Falsehood?

    HOW DO WE COMMUNICATE IDEAS WITH FICTION BUT NOT FALSELY? William Butchman—“We have a universe of potentiality available to us. Is potential which has not yet been called into being ‘fiction’, is it ‘false’?”— Curt Doolittle No. We can state it falsely, but we cannot state that which we can envision is yet false. no. To respect natural law we must merely not make false claims. This is the beauty of fiction (literature) vs fictionalism (religion, pseudo-rationalism, pseudoscience – the discourse of conflation) Fiction makes no truth claims, it merely spreads ideas. If it makes truth claims, (particularly ‘smear campaigns against past idols) then that is not fiction but fictionalization – conflation)