EVOLUTION
(working with deflationary truth now expressly, as the result of operationalism and criticism/falsification)
Free association / imaginable
…. Reason / Reasonableness (conceivable)
…. …. Deducible / Possibility (proof)
…. …. …. Rational Philosophy / Rational Truth (Logic.)
…. …. …. …. Analytic Philosophy / Analytic Truth (Emp.)
…. …. …. …. …. Deflationary Philosophy / Deflationary Truth (Op.)
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-21 17:10:00 UTC
FIRST TO GET THIS OFF THE TABLE —“I wish I could assume that you are acting in good faith”— Well I will tell you how I DO NOT act in good faith: I dont have a classroom to experiment on students. I don’t have a research budget, and I don’t have graduate students (indentured labor) to conduct experiments for me. What I do have is access to a very inexpensive medium for experimenting with arguments. In my process of inquiry, I work very hard to construct conditions under which I can obtain what I consider honest or truthful information, vs reported information. I work very hard to understand how and why people hold positions, and to test my theories against those positions. So all my arguments are tests. I iterate these tests about ten times before they seem to be fairly good, and then over the next few years refine them until I can state them as aphorisms or series, or something incredibly dense – effectively as verbal proofs. I construct proofs. This work requires that I ‘get inside the heads’ of the people who hold these positions, and then reduce those positions to a series of testable criteria (incentives) regardless of position. And since I am a philosopher of science, and a falsificationist, I do this by attacking ideas until I see if and how they survive – or not. So I investigated sovereign monarchism, classical liberalism, libertarianism, anarcho-capitalism, neoreaction, and now the ‘nazis’ with sympathy to understand them then I attack those ideas to falsify them. And what remains is a set of ‘goods and bads’ from each model. In other words, in some ways, because I treat everyone I interact with in business and intellectual life, as a participant in an experiment, I am continually operating under conditions that you might consider disingenuous in the moment but profoundly moral in the end result. I learned most of this technique negotiating (i have bought a lot of companies, closed a lot of deals, and done deals that were meritous and some I regret today as immoral. But I see my chief problem in negotiation, simply living in a world full of relative upper class scoundrels, educated imbeciles and underclass zombies, and a middle and working class that appears to consist of the only moral people extant in western society, and they are the ones that least benefit from the current order – because they are being exterminated by it.) Now, there are a good number of people who follow me that know exactly what I am doing. And I think it is this form of cunning they appreciate almost as much as the output of my work. But in my world I am literally nothing more than a scientist using verbal experiments to investigate the human mind so that I can construct a body of law that will reverse the beneficiaries of the western order, and restore them to the middle and working classes, and save my people and our priceless civilization in doing so. So if that ‘disenginuity’ makes me immoral somehow in your world because I am ‘using’ people, when they are voluntarily engaging in these discussions, and I have to do nothing more than stand on the top of the hill and say I’m the king in order to get them to play this very elaborate verbal game, then I think you practice a woman’s morality, rather than a man’s. I take responsibiilty for not only myself, but for my people and for mankind, and I do so by asking people to play a game with me that they willingly play, are entertained by, and learn from. Frankly, if I didn’t have so much respect for you I wouldn’t say this but I know you are a moral man. What actually bothers me is that in my view the cost of dealing with all these shitty selfish people in all these ridiculous niches of political masturbation tires the hell out of me. But just as we must go live among the animals to understand them, and bear the costs and risks of doing so, I must do the same with every shitty immoral, selfish, justificationary, eddy of the human political tidal pool. That is the truth as I am most capable at the moment of speaking it. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute
FIRST TO GET THIS OFF THE TABLE —“I wish I could assume that you are acting in good faith”— Well I will tell you how I DO NOT act in good faith: I dont have a classroom to experiment on students. I don’t have a research budget, and I don’t have graduate students (indentured labor) to conduct experiments for me. What I do have is access to a very inexpensive medium for experimenting with arguments. In my process of inquiry, I work very hard to construct conditions under which I can obtain what I consider honest or truthful information, vs reported information. I work very hard to understand how and why people hold positions, and to test my theories against those positions. So all my arguments are tests. I iterate these tests about ten times before they seem to be fairly good, and then over the next few years refine them until I can state them as aphorisms or series, or something incredibly dense – effectively as verbal proofs. I construct proofs. This work requires that I ‘get inside the heads’ of the people who hold these positions, and then reduce those positions to a series of testable criteria (incentives) regardless of position. And since I am a philosopher of science, and a falsificationist, I do this by attacking ideas until I see if and how they survive – or not. So I investigated sovereign monarchism, classical liberalism, libertarianism, anarcho-capitalism, neoreaction, and now the ‘nazis’ with sympathy to understand them then I attack those ideas to falsify them. And what remains is a set of ‘goods and bads’ from each model. In other words, in some ways, because I treat everyone I interact with in business and intellectual life, as a participant in an experiment, I am continually operating under conditions that you might consider disingenuous in the moment but profoundly moral in the end result. I learned most of this technique negotiating (i have bought a lot of companies, closed a lot of deals, and done deals that were meritous and some I regret today as immoral. But I see my chief problem in negotiation, simply living in a world full of relative upper class scoundrels, educated imbeciles and underclass zombies, and a middle and working class that appears to consist of the only moral people extant in western society, and they are the ones that least benefit from the current order – because they are being exterminated by it.) Now, there are a good number of people who follow me that know exactly what I am doing. And I think it is this form of cunning they appreciate almost as much as the output of my work. But in my world I am literally nothing more than a scientist using verbal experiments to investigate the human mind so that I can construct a body of law that will reverse the beneficiaries of the western order, and restore them to the middle and working classes, and save my people and our priceless civilization in doing so. So if that ‘disenginuity’ makes me immoral somehow in your world because I am ‘using’ people, when they are voluntarily engaging in these discussions, and I have to do nothing more than stand on the top of the hill and say I’m the king in order to get them to play this very elaborate verbal game, then I think you practice a woman’s morality, rather than a man’s. I take responsibiilty for not only myself, but for my people and for mankind, and I do so by asking people to play a game with me that they willingly play, are entertained by, and learn from. Frankly, if I didn’t have so much respect for you I wouldn’t say this but I know you are a moral man. What actually bothers me is that in my view the cost of dealing with all these shitty selfish people in all these ridiculous niches of political masturbation tires the hell out of me. But just as we must go live among the animals to understand them, and bear the costs and risks of doing so, I must do the same with every shitty immoral, selfish, justificationary, eddy of the human political tidal pool. That is the truth as I am most capable at the moment of speaking it. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute
DEAR MISEDUCATED WORLD: Logic is at least ternary, not binary. (Meaning three states, not two) …………… FALSE…….TRUE……..UNDECIDABLE FALSE…..FALSE…….FALSE……UNDECIDABLE TRUE……FALES…….TRUE……..UNDECIDABLE UNDEC…FALSE…….UNDEC…..UNDECIDABLE MATHEMATICS In mathematics, which for millennia was unfortunately the gold standard of logic, we use the word true when we mean either “balanced” (retaining constant relations), or we mean “proven” (possible to demonstrate), because in mathematics we create proofs of possibility rather than statements of truth. We may claim that we speak truthfully that we have constructed a proof. But mathematics consists of operations, deductions, inferences and guesswork, by which we identify means of demonstrating the possibility and necessity of a series of constant relations (ratios). COMPUTER SCIENCE In the gold standard of reasoning: computer science – when we refer to values, we call this same sequence true, false, and null (unknown). So in computer science, we either possess sufficient information to state something is provable (true or false), or unprovable (false), or undecidable (lacking the information). FORMAL LOGIC I’ll avoid deep discussion of formal logic (sets) because in my view, like all game theory, beyond use in very simple human perceivable scales, it’s been a waste of a century. I mean. I can dismantle the liars paradox in five minutes or less. it was a wasted century. PHYSICAL SCIENCE In sciences we use the terms False, Possibly True (an hypothesis, theory, or law), and Undecidable. Between the choice of true and false, it is false that we know with certainty. Truth always remains uncertain in all but the most simple of questions. EPISTEMOLOGY In epistemology we say something is knowingly false, possibly true, and undecidable, or unknown. In epistemology, just as in science, we must determine if an argument survives attempts to falsify it. If it is true, then we can decide if it is possible. I it is possible then we can decide if it is preferable. If it is preferable without causing harm to others, then we have determined that it is good. MORALITY, PHILOSOPHY, AND THEOLOGY In morality, philosophy, theology, we say (lie) that if we can find an excuse for something (a justification) it is true, or moral, or good. When that only means that according to the established norms, scriptures, and laws. in other words, one is free of blame if he can justify his actions as permissible, moral or good. In morality philosophy and theology, we attempt to survive justification. LAW When we encounter LAW we use the jury, and debate between two parties, and moderated by a judge, to test both whether we are justified under law, and whether our testimony and our arguments are believable. In law we attempt to survive the battle between three forces: the law as written, the standards of rational behavior of the jury, the logical testing of your statements by the judge, and the subjective testing of your truthfulness by the jury. And in case you don’t know this, most cases are decided by the test of truthfulness, which is why american courts are so useful for commerce. The first sin of american law is failure of informational reciprocity. Failure and error are forgivable. Violation of reciprocity is not. HIERARCHY OF CERTAINTY … FALSE, that which does not survive tests of falsification. … … TRUE, that which survives all tests of falsification … … … PROVEN, that which survives tests of possibility. … … … … UNDECIDABLE that which cannot be decided. THE TRUTH TABLE OF CERTAINTY F:False, T:True, P:Provable, U:Undecidable …..F…..T…..P…..U F…F…..F…..F…..U T…F….*T*…P…..U P…F…..P…..P…..U U..F…..U….U…..U
DEAR MISEDUCATED WORLD: Logic is at least ternary, not binary. (Meaning three states, not two) …………… FALSE…….TRUE……..UNDECIDABLE FALSE…..FALSE…….FALSE……UNDECIDABLE TRUE……FALES…….TRUE……..UNDECIDABLE UNDEC…FALSE…….UNDEC…..UNDECIDABLE MATHEMATICS In mathematics, which for millennia was unfortunately the gold standard of logic, we use the word true when we mean either “balanced” (retaining constant relations), or we mean “proven” (possible to demonstrate), because in mathematics we create proofs of possibility rather than statements of truth. We may claim that we speak truthfully that we have constructed a proof. But mathematics consists of operations, deductions, inferences and guesswork, by which we identify means of demonstrating the possibility and necessity of a series of constant relations (ratios). COMPUTER SCIENCE In the gold standard of reasoning: computer science – when we refer to values, we call this same sequence true, false, and null (unknown). So in computer science, we either possess sufficient information to state something is provable (true or false), or unprovable (false), or undecidable (lacking the information). FORMAL LOGIC I’ll avoid deep discussion of formal logic (sets) because in my view, like all game theory, beyond use in very simple human perceivable scales, it’s been a waste of a century. I mean. I can dismantle the liars paradox in five minutes or less. it was a wasted century. PHYSICAL SCIENCE In sciences we use the terms False, Possibly True (an hypothesis, theory, or law), and Undecidable. Between the choice of true and false, it is false that we know with certainty. Truth always remains uncertain in all but the most simple of questions. EPISTEMOLOGY In epistemology we say something is knowingly false, possibly true, and undecidable, or unknown. In epistemology, just as in science, we must determine if an argument survives attempts to falsify it. If it is true, then we can decide if it is possible. I it is possible then we can decide if it is preferable. If it is preferable without causing harm to others, then we have determined that it is good. MORALITY, PHILOSOPHY, AND THEOLOGY In morality, philosophy, theology, we say (lie) that if we can find an excuse for something (a justification) it is true, or moral, or good. When that only means that according to the established norms, scriptures, and laws. in other words, one is free of blame if he can justify his actions as permissible, moral or good. In morality philosophy and theology, we attempt to survive justification. LAW When we encounter LAW we use the jury, and debate between two parties, and moderated by a judge, to test both whether we are justified under law, and whether our testimony and our arguments are believable. In law we attempt to survive the battle between three forces: the law as written, the standards of rational behavior of the jury, the logical testing of your statements by the judge, and the subjective testing of your truthfulness by the jury. And in case you don’t know this, most cases are decided by the test of truthfulness, which is why american courts are so useful for commerce. The first sin of american law is failure of informational reciprocity. Failure and error are forgivable. Violation of reciprocity is not. HIERARCHY OF CERTAINTY … FALSE, that which does not survive tests of falsification. … … TRUE, that which survives all tests of falsification … … … PROVEN, that which survives tests of possibility. … … … … UNDECIDABLE that which cannot be decided. THE TRUTH TABLE OF CERTAINTY F:False, T:True, P:Provable, U:Undecidable …..F…..T…..P…..U F…F…..F…..F…..U T…F….*T*…P…..U P…F…..P…..P…..U U..F…..U….U…..U
Look, truthful speech is expensive, which is why humans practice it so rarely and westerners alone were able to discover deflationary truth.
For a man, truthfulness is cost, but that cost comes as a form of self sacrifice to the pack, warriors, tribe, army, and nation – a means of paying for his share of the opportunity, just as his actions pay for a share of the kill.
For a woman it is a risk to speak the truth – no so much because of men, but because of what other women will do to her, and her greater dependence upon those women than upon the men, who most often treat her (in her opinion) as property, utility, or livestock.
I think all of us struggle for agency, and truth and discipline are the means by which we obtain it. But agency is of different value to different group evolutoinary strategies.
While i am certain that different classes possess different agency, I am just as certain that the jews my people complain about possess no more agency than the women they complain about, and for exactly the same reason: evolutionary biology.
I wonder how much agency east and southeast asians have despite their accomplishments. I mean, is it as simple as theh require the high context civilization to functoin, just as we funciton best in the low context civilization? Have our brains evolved likewise?
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-20 18:17:00 UTC
Q&A: WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON RAND AND OBJECTIVISM, AND HOW DOES SHE COMPARE TO PROPERTARIANISM (final word on the matter so to speak) —“Dear Doolittle: What are your thoughts on Ayn Rand and objectivism. What are the similarities between objectivism and propertarianism? What are the differences?Forgive me if you’ve already covered this, I’ve only been following for a few months.”— The simple version is that rand provides a literary attack on norms that is framed in economic terms, where nietzche provides a literary attack on norms that is framed by purely aestehtic terms. In my view she is attempting to restate nietzsche for middle class consumption. So if you asked me if you wanted to learn some subject I would tell you to start with an historical novel, or movie about it to provide cultural context. Then I would suggest an autobiography about it to provide personal context. Then I would tell you to read an introduction to the technical aspects – something short. Then to read a textbook about it. So I would tell you to work from broad brush strokes to very precise formula by incremental means. Rand is a LITERARY author trying desperately to produce an analytic philosophy. Where she succeeds is in providing an easier explanation of Nietzche accessible to the contemporary audience through a novelization. Where she fails is in an attempt to join the ranks of analytic philosophers. she succeeds in creating a literary moral philosophy for the moral argument of middle class values, but she fails in producing an ethical, moral, political, and group evolutionary science. Rand is a doorway for the young mind, and as such we should respect her as we respect other literary philosophers like plato. But there is no substitute for aristotelianism: science. its just a lot harder to learn science. I believe I have unified biology (science), philosophy: ethics and morality(cooperation), economics(production), politics( production of commons), group competitive strategy (evolution), and Law (decidability) and as such, for all intents and purposes, Propertarianism is my term for “Natural Law”, which is a science of cooperation expressed in the science of cooperation: “Law”. So in the 19th and early 20th century we saw the battle between egalitarian eugenic truth and transcendence: poincare, maxwell, darwin, menger, spencer, hayek, and nietzsche, and authoritarian dysgenic lies: cantor, boaz, marx, freud, frankfurt school (left), mises/rothbard/rand (middle), and Trotsky/Leo Strauss (right) school of accommodation of the underclasses and profiting from them. And we saw the total failure in the 20th century of the anglo model of classical liberalism and the failure of its arguments – accommodation. And we saw the unfortunate failure in the 20th century of the german attempt at the second scientific revolution, and the restoration of europe, by the maturation of the german (hanseatic) civilization. What has happened is that since neither could win the arguments, the left has tried to immigrate lower class dependents in, faster than the conservatives can integrate them. And it has worked to a large degree only because the school, state, academy complex has conspired against western civilization: egalitarian, eugenic, and truthful civilization of transcendence. Curt Doolittle The Cult of Non Submission The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Natural Law of Sovereign Men The Propertarian Institute, Kiev, Ukraine
Q&A: WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON RAND AND OBJECTIVISM, AND HOW DOES SHE COMPARE TO PROPERTARIANISM (final word on the matter so to speak) —“Dear Doolittle: What are your thoughts on Ayn Rand and objectivism. What are the similarities between objectivism and propertarianism? What are the differences?Forgive me if you’ve already covered this, I’ve only been following for a few months.”— The simple version is that rand provides a literary attack on norms that is framed in economic terms, where nietzche provides a literary attack on norms that is framed by purely aestehtic terms. In my view she is attempting to restate nietzsche for middle class consumption. So if you asked me if you wanted to learn some subject I would tell you to start with an historical novel, or movie about it to provide cultural context. Then I would suggest an autobiography about it to provide personal context. Then I would tell you to read an introduction to the technical aspects – something short. Then to read a textbook about it. So I would tell you to work from broad brush strokes to very precise formula by incremental means. Rand is a LITERARY author trying desperately to produce an analytic philosophy. Where she succeeds is in providing an easier explanation of Nietzche accessible to the contemporary audience through a novelization. Where she fails is in an attempt to join the ranks of analytic philosophers. she succeeds in creating a literary moral philosophy for the moral argument of middle class values, but she fails in producing an ethical, moral, political, and group evolutionary science. Rand is a doorway for the young mind, and as such we should respect her as we respect other literary philosophers like plato. But there is no substitute for aristotelianism: science. its just a lot harder to learn science. I believe I have unified biology (science), philosophy: ethics and morality(cooperation), economics(production), politics( production of commons), group competitive strategy (evolution), and Law (decidability) and as such, for all intents and purposes, Propertarianism is my term for “Natural Law”, which is a science of cooperation expressed in the science of cooperation: “Law”. So in the 19th and early 20th century we saw the battle between egalitarian eugenic truth and transcendence: poincare, maxwell, darwin, menger, spencer, hayek, and nietzsche, and authoritarian dysgenic lies: cantor, boaz, marx, freud, frankfurt school (left), mises/rothbard/rand (middle), and Trotsky/Leo Strauss (right) school of accommodation of the underclasses and profiting from them. And we saw the total failure in the 20th century of the anglo model of classical liberalism and the failure of its arguments – accommodation. And we saw the unfortunate failure in the 20th century of the german attempt at the second scientific revolution, and the restoration of europe, by the maturation of the german (hanseatic) civilization. What has happened is that since neither could win the arguments, the left has tried to immigrate lower class dependents in, faster than the conservatives can integrate them. And it has worked to a large degree only because the school, state, academy complex has conspired against western civilization: egalitarian, eugenic, and truthful civilization of transcendence. Curt Doolittle The Cult of Non Submission The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Natural Law of Sovereign Men The Propertarian Institute, Kiev, Ukraine