( I mean, I love libertarians, but you know, I love women also. There are plenty of people with intellectual honesty, moral ambitions, and love in their hearts. That doesn’t change the fact that the evidence is what it is. People are merely rational. They are not good. They are not bad. They will act good or bad depending upon the incentives. And this is why libertarians are morally blind. Not as morally blind as progressives, but morally blind. )
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-23 20:31:00 UTC
Via Negativa: eliminate error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, overloading, superstition, pseudo-rationalism, pseudoscience, and deception, and only truth candidates remain. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-23 17:47:00 UTC
via pm: —“i’m afraid of josh”– (anon)
Yes well that’s probably the right thing to feel. But good criticism is very hard to find. I learn a lot from his.
The truth is that people should be afraid of most of us. “Moral Clarity” that gives us “Moral Authority” for which we are willing to risk life and limb in an effort to save our civilization is something to be sought, but not feared.
We need more of it. 🙂
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-23 13:35:00 UTC
I have to understand a thing to state it both passionately and truthfully. History is already full of many people who state opinions passionately as a substitute for stating them truthfully. I don’t need to add to their number, but end the growth of their number.
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-23 13:28:00 UTC
THE WEST’S GROUP EVOLUTIONARY STRATEGY
1 – SOVEREIGNTY (CONTRACTUALISM), REQUIRES ->
2 – MILITIA (PAY TO PLAY), REQUIRES ->
3 – TRUST, REQUIRES ->
4 – TRUTH WHICH PERMITS ->
5 – DOMESTICATING ANIMAL MAN FOR FUN AND PROFIT. WHICH CAUSES ->
7 – TRANSCENDENCE (EUGENIC EVOLUTION VIA PEDOMORPHISM), WHICH RESULTS IN ->
8 – EVER INCREASING RATES OF ADAPTATION (INNOVATION AND WEALTH)
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-23 11:48:00 UTC
TRUTH GIVES YOU, AND US, POWER
(interesting)
It’s not that I don’t make mistakes. I do. Often. Or that I’m all that arrogant (other than when it suits marketing purposes). It’s that it’s simply very, very, very, hard to use testimonialism and propertarianism and not become aware of your errors, biases, wishful thinking, attempts at suggestion, obscurantism, overloading, and deceit. It allows you to dramatically increase the ratio of true and false propositions.
There is no substitute however for the market for criticism by equally testimonial means. One simply cannot think of everything on one’s own.
So I find most of my errors are errors of interpretation of others, or of historical facts that I use as illustrations and examples. These are errors of meaning, not errors of construction.
But even in construction, when we are subjectively testing the incentives that cause the decisions of others, we can be easily ignorant of the factors involved (inputs) that the individual is weighing. it is very easy to judge one’s misrepresentation of those weights, but if we are not aware of them we cannot subjectively test (judge) them.
This is why discourse, jury, and market are so effective in improving our polities, commons, products, services, and information **IF** they consist of testimonial language and warranty (truth) … and why they are so destructive in its absence: because self correction is not only difficult but increasingly impossible. And manipulation by others is so trivially easy.
The most expensive commons we have built in the west is truth telling (testimony), in an effort to maintain the high trust (militia) polity. A Sovereignty requires Militia, Militia requires trust, trust requires truth, and truth produces all the amazing consequences we attribute to western civlization: under economic adversity we innovate faster than the rest.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-23 11:46:00 UTC
Sheriff A E S T H E T I C
“Well you may throw your rock and hide your hand
Workin’ in the dark against your fellow man
But as sure as God made black and white
What’s down in the dark will be brought to the light”
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-23 04:55:00 UTC
Do you mean I have to repeat the last time I eviscerated you? Why do you waste my time?
1) Tell me how my work in Testimonialism recommends use of Natural Common, Judge Discovered Law to demand warranties of due diligence for public speech in matters of coercion (politics).
2) Tell me what seven due diligences one must perform in order to satisfy that warranty, and why any of those is particularly difficult (categorical, logical, empirical, operational, reciprocal, fully accounted, and limited). (Especially when it was mises who discovered operationalism in Economics; when )
3) Then tell me why this model will not work to incrementally suppress error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, overloading, propaganda and deceit.
4) Then tell me why, except for reciprocity (moral consistency), if the hard sciences practice these warranties of due diligence, the same results in hard science would not be possible in psychological science, social science, economic science, and political science, if we include reciprocity in the list of required due diligences.
5) Then tell me why we could not demand these due diligences in political speech in a court of law, just as we do for advertising claims, marketing claims, commercial sales presentations, contract provisions, services brought to market, and goods brought to market?
6) Then tell me if defense of the informational (political) commons is policed by ordinary citizens (universal standing in matters of the commons) and if rule of law (universal application of the law to all individuals without exception) how this does not produce a market for Truth by suppressing the market for falsehood, just as we produce a market for truth by suppressing a market for fraud.
There is no reason logical, empirical, functional, or ethical that we cannot demand truthful speech in politics.
Except for those who wish to perpetuate lies.
if you can construct an argument against this series then you will ‘have me’. But you write a great deal of nonsense without actually addressing the very boring reality that between the hard sciences and the law, we already do most of this demanding of due diligence. And do it successfully. Daily. In fact, if it weren’t for the long standing legal proposition that we should tolerate error and deceit in order to encourage political speech, in the same way we tolerate slander and libel of public figures to give license to opinion and error, in the same way we tolerate abuse of patents in order to encourage innovation, in the same way we allow legal interpretation instead of strict construction from original intent, then we would already do most of this. What we learned in the 20th century was (a) the use of operational language to create existential (observational) consistency, (b) and that operational consistency allowed us to discover limits of theories. But operational language has been studied (EPrime) and authors have written entire works in it. Law already favors reciprocity, and law already constructs documents increasingly operationally. What our framers did not expect was that propaganda was so cheaply manufactured and in such industrial quantity, and the common man or woman is so susceptible to it, that the cost of refutation would be impossible to defeat. So rather than leave such ‘frauds’ to be freely made, we can use consumer protection to protect consumers.
Either you can respond to this or you cannot.
(or perhaps you will not publish this response like you did not publish my last.)
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-22 17:40:00 UTC
(thinking about an upcoming interview)
Well, you know, it’s pretty hard to describe empiricism before empiricism, rationalism before rationalism, reason before reason. So it’s pretty hard to describe Testimonialism, a little less so Propertarianism, and a little less so market government.
And just as language had to change in response to every major conceptual evolutionary leap, learning that language each time is pretty hard. But in exchange for that leap, those problems of that were previously not understood, describable, and debatable, become understandable, describable, and debatable – extending our understanding of the universe we live in.
To create internally consistent means of categorizing, comparing, and deciding between increasingly complex questions (problems) we have developed a number of categories of increasing complexity. In mathematics we think in terms of numbers, sets of numbers (arithmetic), ratios of numbers (mathematics), spatial relations (geometry), and relations in time (calculus), and fragmentary information (statistics). Each method increases the number of dimensions we are able to describe as constant relations.
Outside of mathematics, in philosophy (or at least in analytic philosophy) we use similar categories to describe a spectrum of increasingly complex constant relations.
They are science andMetaphysics, psychology and Epistemology, sociology and Ethics, politics and Law, the arts and Aesthetics, group competitive strategy and War( violence, immigration, economic, norms(religion) and information (propaganda).)
Note the use of lower case for the physical and social sciences, and the uppercase for the branches of philosophy.
What I have tried to accomplish, and I think successfully, is to create a common value neutral, scientific language, for the categorization, comparison, decidability of all of these subjects, across all of these fields. Whether you want to call it a science or philosophy at this point is rather meaningless, since the result of my work is that those two terms are now synonyms, and everything else is either pseudoscience, pseudo-rationalism, pseudo-moralism, utopian literature, or the supernatural.
The net result of which is that I have, I think, made it much harder to use language at every scale, from the intrapersonal (self), to interpersonal, to an audience, to the media, to the government, to the courts, to engage in error, bias, wishful thinking, omission and suggestion; loading framing and overloading; or pseudoscience, pseudo-rationalism, pseudo-moralism, and supernaturalism; our outright deceit, and repetition of falsehoods (propagandizing).
And just as empiricism radically reduced falsehood in the informational commons, I am fairly sure that testimonialism will radically reduce falsehood in the commons. And I am entirely certain that Testimonialism(epistemology) and Propertarianism(ethics) will produce as great a change in human existence as did empiricism and darwinism.
So when I tell you that my work consists of a framework:
Acquisitionism (psychology)
Testimonialism (epistemology)
Propertarianism (Sociology)
Strictly Constructed Natural Law (Law)
Market Government (Politics)
Sovereignty, Heroism, Transcenence (Aesthetics)
Group Evolutionary Strategy (War)
And that this framework completes the promise of the Anglo scientific enlightenment by solving the problem of the social sciences.
That’s what my work has accomplished.
And that is why it takes a bit of explaining.
But if you want to know WHY I spent my life on it. It’s because (a) I really dislike conflict, (b) I really dislike deceit, (c) I really love my people, (d) I understand the unique accidents that are i-life, ii-sentient life, iii-cooperative life, and iv-western civilization: the people who discovered “Truth Proper”.
And so when I heard conservatives fail to say anything intelligent in arguments against the pseudoscience, pseudo-rationalism, outright lying, and propaganda of the de-civilizing left, I wanted to create a rational language to explain their ancient group evolutionary strategy, and the reasons that that strategy had resulted in dragging mankind out of ignorance, disease, and poverty in the pre-historic world of the bronze age, in the ancient greco roman world, and in the modern european world.
But somewhere along teh way I decided that I had to not only provide a positive means of explanation, but a negative means of criticism. In other words, I had to make it much harder than it is today, to engage in very complex lies.
Because just as in the early world we developed domesticationism (paternalism/property/sovergitny), and in the ancient world we developed reason, and in the modern world we developed science, the middle east developed authoritarian religion (zoroaster) in response to domesticationism, authoritarian monotheism (judaism/christianity/islam) in response to reason, and authoritarian pseudoscientific cosmopolitanism (Boaz, Marx/Lenin/Trotsky, Freud, {Frankfurt School}, Cantor, Mises, Rothbard/Rand, and Strauss) using the same utopian fictionalism that had Abraham and his cult, and Zoroaster and his cult.
I have no doubt that they will seek to invent another authoritarian set of lies to counter against testimonialism, but in the interim, we can take at least one step forward in restoring western civilization from the Third Great Utopian Lie of the East.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, ukraine.
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-22 14:44:00 UTC
RT @JimmyTrussels: @jordanbpeterson @curtdoolittle incremental mastery of truth telling as a coop/ruling tech for federated warriors -> Wes…
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-22 13:07:05 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/823155023081250817