Curt Doolittle

Theme: Truth

  • 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)

  • “I’m generally right – only because I know more ways to be wrong.” — Eli Harma

    —“I’m generally right – only because I know more ways to be wrong.” — Eli Harman

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-25 16:31:00 UTC

  • HOW DO WE COMMUNICATE IDEAS WITH FICTION BUT NOT FALSELY? William Butchman —“W

    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)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-25 14:30:00 UTC

  • Definition: Fictionalism

    Mar 24, 2017 11:43am DEFINITION: FICTIONALISM (important for propertarian core) Fictionalism is the name of the judgement within philosophy, as to which statements that appear to be descriptions of the world should not be construed as such, but should instead be understood as cases of “make believe”, of pretending to treat something as literally true (a “useful fiction”). Fictionalism consists in at least the following three theses: 1) Claims made within the domain of discourse are taken to be truth-apt; that is, descriptive or fictional, and honest or deceitful, and true or false. 2) The domain of discourse is to be interpreted at face value—not reduced to meaning something else:

    • conversation(bonding or entertainment),
    • discourse (discovery),
    • argument(persuasion), and
    • testimony(reporting),

    Differ substantially in the contractual commitments to one another as to the degree of

    • description vs fiction,
    • honesty vs deceit, and
    • truth or falsehood,

    Of our statements. (We white and grey lie all time time in conversation, and we do no such thing in testimony.) 3) The purpose of *discourse(discovery)* in any given domain is not truth, but communication. Whether descriptive or fictional, honest or deceptive, true or false.   Four common occurrences of fictionalism are:1) mathematical fictionalism advocated by Hartry Field, which states that talk of numbers and other mathematical objects is nothing more than a verbal convenience for performing their science. (the logic of constant relations: measurement) 2) modal fictionalism developed by Gideon Rosen, which states that possible worlds, regardless of whether they exist or not, may be a part of a useful discourse, and; 3) moral fictionalism in meta-ethics, advocated by Richard Joyce, suggests that fictions (Falsehoods) are too useful to throw out. 4) religious fiction in all areas of thought – our most ancient form of fictionalism. 5) Aesthetic Fictionalism (In the arts, in experience, in the new age, and in the occult) We must note that all three of these claims are just excuses for doing what has been done in the past. Of these groups: 0 – Religious Language in toto (supernaturalism) 1 – Literary Philosophers (positive, or advocates ), 2 – Supernormal Physicists, and 3 – Mathematical Platonists; All attempt to preserve the use of fictions for one of the following possible reasons: 1) To conduct deceptions by claiming their arbitrary preferences or judgements are truths. 2) Obscure their ignorance of causality and decidability in their disciplines, or 3) Preserve the cost of their investments in obscurantist fictional descriptions, or 4) Avoid the costs of investigating the method of decidability within their domains. 5) Avoid the falsification of their arguments if methods of decidability within their domains are discovered. And so: If we define philosophy (positive and literary) as the search for methods of decidability within a domain of preference, and If we define truth  (negative and descriptive) as the search for methods of decidability across all domains regardless of preference. Then: We find that positive or literary philosophy(fiction or philosophy) informs, suggests opportunities, and justifies preferences for the purpose of forming cooperation and alliances between individuals and groups. We find that negative or juridical philosophy(truth or law) decides, states limits, and discounts preferences, for the purpose of resolving conflicts between individuals and groups. Natural Law (propertarianism), is a negative, descriptive, juridical science, not a fictional literature. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Definition: Fictionalism

    Mar 24, 2017 11:43am DEFINITION: FICTIONALISM (important for propertarian core) Fictionalism is the name of the judgement within philosophy, as to which statements that appear to be descriptions of the world should not be construed as such, but should instead be understood as cases of “make believe”, of pretending to treat something as literally true (a “useful fiction”). Fictionalism consists in at least the following three theses: 1) Claims made within the domain of discourse are taken to be truth-apt; that is, descriptive or fictional, and honest or deceitful, and true or false. 2) The domain of discourse is to be interpreted at face value—not reduced to meaning something else:

    • conversation(bonding or entertainment),
    • discourse (discovery),
    • argument(persuasion), and
    • testimony(reporting),

    Differ substantially in the contractual commitments to one another as to the degree of

    • description vs fiction,
    • honesty vs deceit, and
    • truth or falsehood,

    Of our statements. (We white and grey lie all time time in conversation, and we do no such thing in testimony.) 3) The purpose of *discourse(discovery)* in any given domain is not truth, but communication. Whether descriptive or fictional, honest or deceptive, true or false.   Four common occurrences of fictionalism are:1) mathematical fictionalism advocated by Hartry Field, which states that talk of numbers and other mathematical objects is nothing more than a verbal convenience for performing their science. (the logic of constant relations: measurement) 2) modal fictionalism developed by Gideon Rosen, which states that possible worlds, regardless of whether they exist or not, may be a part of a useful discourse, and; 3) moral fictionalism in meta-ethics, advocated by Richard Joyce, suggests that fictions (Falsehoods) are too useful to throw out. 4) religious fiction in all areas of thought – our most ancient form of fictionalism. 5) Aesthetic Fictionalism (In the arts, in experience, in the new age, and in the occult) We must note that all three of these claims are just excuses for doing what has been done in the past. Of these groups: 0 – Religious Language in toto (supernaturalism) 1 – Literary Philosophers (positive, or advocates ), 2 – Supernormal Physicists, and 3 – Mathematical Platonists; All attempt to preserve the use of fictions for one of the following possible reasons: 1) To conduct deceptions by claiming their arbitrary preferences or judgements are truths. 2) Obscure their ignorance of causality and decidability in their disciplines, or 3) Preserve the cost of their investments in obscurantist fictional descriptions, or 4) Avoid the costs of investigating the method of decidability within their domains. 5) Avoid the falsification of their arguments if methods of decidability within their domains are discovered. And so: If we define philosophy (positive and literary) as the search for methods of decidability within a domain of preference, and If we define truth  (negative and descriptive) as the search for methods of decidability across all domains regardless of preference. Then: We find that positive or literary philosophy(fiction or philosophy) informs, suggests opportunities, and justifies preferences for the purpose of forming cooperation and alliances between individuals and groups. We find that negative or juridical philosophy(truth or law) decides, states limits, and discounts preferences, for the purpose of resolving conflicts between individuals and groups. Natural Law (propertarianism), is a negative, descriptive, juridical science, not a fictional literature. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • DEFINITION: FICTIONALISM (important for propertarian core) Fictionalism is the n

    DEFINITION: FICTIONALISM

    (important for propertarian core)

    Fictionalism is the name of the judgement within philosophy, as to which statements that appear to be descriptions of the world should not be construed as such, but should instead be understood as cases of “make believe”, of pretending to treat something as literally true (a “useful fiction”).

    Fictionalism consists in at least the following three theses:

    1) Claims made within the domain of discourse are taken to be truth-apt; that is, descriptive or fictional, and honest or deceitful, and true or false.

    2) The domain of discourse is to be interpreted at face value—not reduced to meaning something else: conversation(bonding or entertainment), discourse (discovery), argument(persuasion), and testimony(reporting), differ substantially in the contractual commitments to one another as to the degree of description vs fiction, honesty vs deceit, and truth or falsehood, of our statements. (We white and grey lie all time time in conversation, and we do no such thing in testimony.)

    3) The purpose of *discourse(discovery)* in any given domain is not truth, but communication. Whether descriptive or fictional, honest or deceptive, true or false.

    Four common occurrences of fictionalism are:

    1) mathematical fictionalism advocated by Hartry Field, which states that talk of numbers and other mathematical objects is nothing more than a verbal convenience for performing their science. (the logic of constant relations: measurement)

    2) modal fictionalism developed by Gideon Rosen, which states that possible worlds, regardless of whether they exist or not, may be a part of a useful discourse, and;

    3) moral fictionalism in meta-ethics, advocated by Richard Joyce, suggests that fictions (Falsehoods) are too useful to throw out.

    4) religious fiction in all areas of thought – our most ancient form of fictionalism.

    5) Aesthetic Fictionalism (In the arts, in experience, in the new age, and in the occult)

    We must note that all three of these claims are just excuses for doing what has been done in the past.

    Of these groups:

    0 – Religious Language in toto (supernaturalism)

    1 – Literary Philosophers (positive, or advocates ),

    2 – Supernormal Physicists, and

    3 – Mathematical Platonists;

    All attempt to preserve the use of fictions for one of the following possible reasons:

    1) To conduct deceptions by claiming their arbitrary preferences or judgements are truths.

    2) Obscure their ignorance of causality and decidability in their disciplines, or

    3) Preserve the cost of their investments in obscurantist fictional descriptions, or

    4) Avoid the costs of investigating the method of decidability within their domains.

    5) Avoid the falsification of their arguments if methods of decidability within their domains are discovered.

    If we define philosophy (positive and literary) as the search for methods of decidability within a domain of preference, and

    if we define truth as the search for methods of decidability across all domains regardless of preference.

    Then:

    We find that positive or literary philosophy(fiction or philosophy) informs, suggests opportunities, and justifies preferences for the purpose of forming cooperation and alliances between individuals and groups.

    We find that negative or juridical philosophy(truth or law) decides, states limits, and discounts preferences, for the purpose of resolving conflicts between individuals and groups.

    Natural Law (propertarianism), is a negative, descriptive, juridical science, not a .fictional literature.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-24 11:43:00 UTC

  • Deflationary Language in Ethics

    Mar 01, 2017 6:51pm James Augustus I suspect one of the factors contributing to deflationary language in ethics, law and science is that we needed a rational, empirical means of decidability in matters concerning rule, organization and extra-familial cooperation. (Note that legal realism, contractualism and truth telling (science and it’s precursors) coincided with conquest and colonization of non-kin groups. Myth (context driven means of decidability) doesn’t scale past regulating/adjudicating tribal and familia affairs; Natural Law does because it serves as the only universally decidable means of adjudication between heterogeneous peoples.) On the institutional level, the West was blessed with a geography that produced a high frequency of warfare in a manner that made institutional monopolies evolutionarily disadvantageous. An institution was able to survive if it wasn’t conflated with the current power structure (think of the Church and it’s relation to political power during the Middle Ages). In othewords, the incentive for institutions was to secure their existence by remaining autonomous/separated from the institutions of rule scince there was constant and frequent shifts in political power—the opposite of China. These are just loose thoughts. I’ve been mulling this over in hopes that I can write a more formal evolutionary argument for Western Dynamism.

  • Deflationary Language in Ethics

    Mar 01, 2017 6:51pm James Augustus I suspect one of the factors contributing to deflationary language in ethics, law and science is that we needed a rational, empirical means of decidability in matters concerning rule, organization and extra-familial cooperation. (Note that legal realism, contractualism and truth telling (science and it’s precursors) coincided with conquest and colonization of non-kin groups. Myth (context driven means of decidability) doesn’t scale past regulating/adjudicating tribal and familia affairs; Natural Law does because it serves as the only universally decidable means of adjudication between heterogeneous peoples.) On the institutional level, the West was blessed with a geography that produced a high frequency of warfare in a manner that made institutional monopolies evolutionarily disadvantageous. An institution was able to survive if it wasn’t conflated with the current power structure (think of the Church and it’s relation to political power during the Middle Ages). In othewords, the incentive for institutions was to secure their existence by remaining autonomous/separated from the institutions of rule scince there was constant and frequent shifts in political power—the opposite of China. These are just loose thoughts. I’ve been mulling this over in hopes that I can write a more formal evolutionary argument for Western Dynamism.

  • Natural Law, Sovereignty, and the Restoration

    Mar 02, 2017 9:42am NATURAL LAW, SOVEREIGNTY, AND THE RESTORATION NATURAL LAW Testimonialism: Epistemology and Truth (Testimony), and Propertarianism: Ethics and Natural Law (Cooperation), and Natural Common Law (a grammar), provide the means of producing contracts (Constitutions), that are ‘scientific’ – which in testimonialism means ‘truthful’, and not open to creative interpretation by the judiciary. This ‘precision’ was necessary in order to increase the demand for warranty of due diligence against fraud from covering products and services, to covering information (speech). SOVEREIGNTY (WESTERN CIVILIZATION) Sovereignty (‘liberty in fact not by permission’), Market Civilization (association, cooperation, production, reproduction, production of commons, production of polities, production of group evolutionary strategy), and Western Group Evolutionary Strategy (Transcendence / Domestication), Provide an analytic explanation of the reasons for western rapid evolution in the bronze, iron, and steel ages. THE RESTORATION 1 – How we were met by supernatural mysticism, monotheistic religion, and pseudoscientific/pseudorational ‘religion’ by the people to the east, in each era. And how the current pseudoscientific came about. 2- How we can use Natural Law to restore western civilization, by reforming or rewriting our constitution and that of others. 3 – Including various institutional methods of producing commons truthfully. 4 – Including the necessity, under Sovereignty, of markets for the production of commons. 5 – Including the necessity of various policies under the group strategy of Transcendence So, given that we can use propertarianism and testimonialism to produce ANY government truthfully, what I THINK you are asking, is that if we chose to pursue Sovereignty and Transcendence to restore western civilization under strictly constructed natural law, what would be the optimum(?) end state? We can choose from any number of options, but the lowest risk is to selectively revoke, restore and amend the constitution and with it the judiciary, restore the monarchy and militia, reduce any ‘federal’ government to a corporeal insurer of last resort, with courts limited to dispute resolution on narrow forms of commercial non normative property; with a market for commons consisting of multiple “houses” representing various classes, (Territorial, Commercial, Familial, and Dependent) which vote by apportionment (put money to what they want), and any contract not opposed by the other houses on legal basis survives. In other words “a market” using some of the proceeds of “the markets” for the production of commons, that improve the returns in the market. My ‘belief’ (forecast) is that the proceeds of suppressing falsehood (by testimonialism) will be greater than the proceeds of suppressing mysticism (by empiricism). The converse question is that if you cannot provide warranty of due diligence of your words, then why should others tolerate them any more than whether they tolerate a lack of due diligence of your actions (services), or productions (goods)?f Every liar no matter how well intentioned finds an excuse to defend his lies. But why is it that we must tolerate lies?

  • Natural Law, Sovereignty, and the Restoration

    Mar 02, 2017 9:42am NATURAL LAW, SOVEREIGNTY, AND THE RESTORATION NATURAL LAW Testimonialism: Epistemology and Truth (Testimony), and Propertarianism: Ethics and Natural Law (Cooperation), and Natural Common Law (a grammar), provide the means of producing contracts (Constitutions), that are ‘scientific’ – which in testimonialism means ‘truthful’, and not open to creative interpretation by the judiciary. This ‘precision’ was necessary in order to increase the demand for warranty of due diligence against fraud from covering products and services, to covering information (speech). SOVEREIGNTY (WESTERN CIVILIZATION) Sovereignty (‘liberty in fact not by permission’), Market Civilization (association, cooperation, production, reproduction, production of commons, production of polities, production of group evolutionary strategy), and Western Group Evolutionary Strategy (Transcendence / Domestication), Provide an analytic explanation of the reasons for western rapid evolution in the bronze, iron, and steel ages. THE RESTORATION 1 – How we were met by supernatural mysticism, monotheistic religion, and pseudoscientific/pseudorational ‘religion’ by the people to the east, in each era. And how the current pseudoscientific came about. 2- How we can use Natural Law to restore western civilization, by reforming or rewriting our constitution and that of others. 3 – Including various institutional methods of producing commons truthfully. 4 – Including the necessity, under Sovereignty, of markets for the production of commons. 5 – Including the necessity of various policies under the group strategy of Transcendence So, given that we can use propertarianism and testimonialism to produce ANY government truthfully, what I THINK you are asking, is that if we chose to pursue Sovereignty and Transcendence to restore western civilization under strictly constructed natural law, what would be the optimum(?) end state? We can choose from any number of options, but the lowest risk is to selectively revoke, restore and amend the constitution and with it the judiciary, restore the monarchy and militia, reduce any ‘federal’ government to a corporeal insurer of last resort, with courts limited to dispute resolution on narrow forms of commercial non normative property; with a market for commons consisting of multiple “houses” representing various classes, (Territorial, Commercial, Familial, and Dependent) which vote by apportionment (put money to what they want), and any contract not opposed by the other houses on legal basis survives. In other words “a market” using some of the proceeds of “the markets” for the production of commons, that improve the returns in the market. My ‘belief’ (forecast) is that the proceeds of suppressing falsehood (by testimonialism) will be greater than the proceeds of suppressing mysticism (by empiricism). The converse question is that if you cannot provide warranty of due diligence of your words, then why should others tolerate them any more than whether they tolerate a lack of due diligence of your actions (services), or productions (goods)?f Every liar no matter how well intentioned finds an excuse to defend his lies. But why is it that we must tolerate lies?