Curt Doolittle

Theme: Truth

  • Retweeted Jim Trussels (@JimmyTrussels): @jordanbpeterson @curtdoolittle increme

    Retweeted Jim Trussels (@JimmyTrussels):

    @jordanbpeterson @curtdoolittle incremental mastery of truth telling as a coop/ruling tech for federated warriors -> Western Civ strategy

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-22 08:07:00 UTC

  • LIES DO NOT REQUIRE INTENT (VIA POSITIVA) BUT FAILURE TO PERFORM DUE DILIGENCE (

    LIES DO NOT REQUIRE INTENT (VIA POSITIVA) BUT FAILURE TO PERFORM DUE DILIGENCE (VIA NEGATIVA).

    (important)

    —“Don’t lies require knowledge and intent? A better description in some cases might be: “Hey, that guy produced a false statement.””—

    I know this is a bit hard to grasp.

    There is a difference between a false statement about that which does not correspond to reality, and an immoral statement that causes an involuntary transfer. The first is false, the second is immoral (theft).

    PROPERTARIANISM’S INCREASE IN SUPPRESSION OF PARASITISM BY WAY OF INFORMATION(SPEECH)

    I move agency from conscious intent to genetic bias, so that each of us is responsible for warranty of due diligence against error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, loading, framing, overloading supernaturalism, pseudo-rationalism, pseudoscience, and outright deceit.

    Just as we hold people accountable for physical impulses, emotional impulses, we can hold people accountable for intellectual impulses.

    You do not only lie by intent, but by failure to intentionally ensure you do not lie without intent on behalf of your genes.

    Just as, you must perform due diligence on what another tells you before relaying it in order to absolve yourself of conspiracy you must perform due diligence on what your genes and therefore your intuition convey to you before you spread it and are guilty of failure to perform due diligence.

    So yes, I position lying as a failure to ensure you are not lying (via negativa) instead of an intent to lie (via positiva) because I am attempting to incrementally suppress the most influential form of lying: using the anonymity and informational density of the modern world to commit fraud on political scales.

    SPECTRA:

    SUPPRESSION: Murder, violence, theft, fraud, fraud by omission, fraud by disinformation, conspiracy, conversion, immigration, war.

    DUE DILIGENCE: Due diligence in prevention of loss to Air, Water, Land, Monument, Built Capital, Genetic Capital, Institutional Capital, Normative Capital, Market for goods, services, and information.

    IN THE MARKET: Due diligence upon products brought to market in the commons.

    Due diligence upon services brought to market in the commons.

    Due diligence upon information brought to market in the commons

    So yes I am asking you and I and everyone else to increase the labor of policing one another’s actions yet again, just as we have incrementally asked one another to police one another’s actions every time we have incrementally suppressed another form of crime that we have identified by the observation of the parasitism performed by man.

    I hope this helps you understand my arguments.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-21 13:27:00 UTC

  • USE TRUE AND LAWFUL, NOT LEGITIMATE (updated)(important) LAWS are moral(true) or

    USE TRUE AND LAWFUL, NOT LEGITIMATE

    (updated)(important)

    LAWS are moral(true) or not(false). They are constructed correctly(truthfully) or not(falsely).

    CONTRACTS are moral or immoral, Lawful or non-Lawful (capital L=Law Proper, lower l=legislation/command).

    Contracts can be constructed by a moral process(Truthfully and Lawfully), or an immoral process (Deceitfully and UnLawfully).

    Legitimacy is a justificationary moral term, just as Divinely is a theological term. it is a way of ‘hedging’ blame avoidance. The english word arises from a legitimate child: born of lawfully married parents.

    The use of the term ‘legitimate’ (lawful, according to rules) evolved in the sense that the authorities have license to exercise violence, or that the construction of some contract or process. Ergo it means ‘moral license’. And from there to reflect the superiority of democratic opinion over natural law. So the term has been, like ‘liberal’ devolved into ‘by popular consent’.

    In other words, in common language, it’s used as a soft-deception that claims moral intuition rather than moral truths justify the exercise of the resulting obligations and rights.

    Hence why I use true/truthful and legal/lawful not ‘legitimate’.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-21 12:44:00 UTC

  • YES, YOU CAN STATE A FALSE QUESTION. A question itself can be based upon false p

    YES, YOU CAN STATE A FALSE QUESTION.

    A question itself can be based upon false premises. So yes, a question can posit a falsehood, just as a statement can posit a falsehood.

    In fact, asking false questions is a conveniently deceptive means of stating falsehoods under the pretext of innocence. (The media does this all the time now – positing opinions, and statements, and arguments as questions as a means of escaping accountabiilty for their words: propagandizing).

    Whenever someone asks a question, first restate it as an assertion (statement), then simply test whether it is true or false. This will identify people who are engaged in deceptions.

    —“How do we prove everything is all just in our minds, or isn’t?”—

    This question is based upon a falsehood: the conflation of logical proof of internal consistency, with the falsification of alternatives leaving a theory that survives as a truth candidate.

    SPECTRUM:

    1) Associable: it is possible by free association to identify a pattern of similarity between two ideas.

    2) Reasonable: One constructs a route, or way, (wayfinding) within that system we call ‘reasonable’ to determine if an idea is reasonably conceivable without succumbing to ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, loading, and framing, or overloading, platonism, supernaturalism, pseudo-rationalism, pseudoscience, or outright deceit.

    3) Rational: non contradictory. One tests a statement for non-contradiction.

    4) Proof: Logical Proof: One constructs a proof of internal consistency within an axiomatic system.

    5) Fact: Observable Fact: One constructs a theory of observation, in an attempt to posit a fact.

    6) Theory: Theoretical Truth: One constructs a theory of causality by external correspondence, and attempts to testify (promise, or speak) truthfully when describing it, by providing due diligence against its possible falsehoods.

    7) Law; A theoretical truth that has survived testing in the market for ideas within which the proposition is defined.

    9) Truth: ultimately most parsimonious description humanly possible given the limits specified in the conditions. (We do not know the first principles of the universe so we cannot yet state truths with any degree of reliability)

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-21 12:37:00 UTC

  • physics -> law-> philosophy,-> ideology, -> theology, -> fantasy -> insanity

    physics -> law-> philosophy,-> ideology, -> theology, -> fantasy -> insanity

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-21 11:01:00 UTC

  • ARE MORAL CODES MORAL? Q&A: —“Are moral codes moral?”—Fredrick George Welfar

    ARE MORAL CODES MORAL?

    Q&A: —“Are moral codes moral?”—Fredrick George Welfare

    A difference between normative, descriptive, and necessary ethics.

    NEGATIVA: Necessary ethics are moral (true),

    EXISTENTIAL: Descriptive (how they are practiced) exist.

    POSITIVA: Normative ethics (how we imagine they should be practiced).(theoretical)

    This terminology is confusing because existential ethics are in evidence as ‘norms’, and normative ethics are not those that are practiced as norms, but the study of what should perhaps be practiced as norms. I prefer “Necessary, Descriptive, and Theoretical.”

    To make mattes worse, existing ethical systems (norms) consist of portfolio of various ‘contracts’, any provision of which my be immoral but in concert, when practiced produce moral ends (or not). The same goes for the combination of moral provisions, can produce immoral ends (although this is harder.)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-21 05:39:00 UTC

  • WHY IS KANT UNFORIVABLE? —“Specifically what about Kant is unforgivable?”—Be

    WHY IS KANT UNFORIVABLE?

    —“Specifically what about Kant is unforgivable?”—Benjamin Thurston

    Inventing pseudorationalism that (1) provided an excuse to circumvent the anglo invention of empiricism, (2) created the possibility for the ‘pseudo-rational, post-mystical, fantasy moral literature that we call continental philosophy”, and (3) gave Marx and the cosmopolitans the means of verbal deception necessary to fool so many people by loading, framing, and overloading. (4) and led to the postmoderns, critical theory / political correctness movement.

    In other words, by attempting to restate christianity in pseudorational terms, he created the next generation of mysticism: pseudorationalism as the subsequent means of literary deception, which was then taken up by the jews (cosmopolitans) who combined it with jewish law (poly ethical poly logical) to create pseudoscience: boaz, marx, freud, cantor, mises, {the frankfurt school}, rothbard(libertinism), and strauss(neoconism).

    In other words, he created a technical revolution in religion as a way to lie by suggestion. A way that it has taken me most of my life to counter.

    The british worked so hard to create the scientific enlightenment by observing the record of empirical law, and tried to restore our ancient order (natural law), and then Kant comes along and restates christianity in a new form of mysticism before the empirical project had been completed.

    (PS: It appears that marx knew he was lying by saying something on the order of “…but I have written it all as dialectic (what we call Pilpul) so I can’t be held accountable if I’m wrong…”. )

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-18 14:06:00 UTC

  • Saying things early means saying things poorly. So, wait and say them well

    Saying things early means saying things poorly. So, wait and say them well.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-18 09:44:00 UTC

  • Reasoning via negativa. You know a rather large number of my positions are drawn

    Reasoning via negativa.

    You know a rather large number of my positions are drawn from the observations of the kinds of errors humans make, rather than some particular insight about the subject matter.

    you can, if you have the time, master pretty much every field on this earth in one lifetime. You cannot master it’s protocols, processes, and habits, but you can at least grasp the methodology each discipline employs – and they’re all relatively similar. The fact that each is expressed in teh class and IQ range of the practitioners simply confuses us – we think it is all more complex than it is.

    And if you know what common ingorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, loading/framing/overloading, obscurantism/pseudoscience/pseudorationalism, and various forms of deceit people engage in then you can seek for examples of those things in the field, and then suggest alternatives.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-17 19:43:00 UTC

  • AVOIDANCE OF EXISTENTIAL GRAMMAR AS COGNITIVE SOLIPSISM: INABILITY TO DISTINGUIS

    AVOIDANCE OF EXISTENTIAL GRAMMAR AS COGNITIVE SOLIPSISM: INABILITY TO DISTINGUISH EXPERIENCE FROM EXISTENCE.

    The deceit is in failing to use EXISTENTIAL GRAMMAR, the same way we use gender-grammar, or temporal grammar, or locational grammar.

    Not sure why it’s so hard for people to grasp this concept.

    Not quite sure why people want to rely on the pretense of ‘god mode’ to make their statements.

    or rather, I think it is a form of cognitive solipsism: inability to separate the self from existence.

    Actually, that’s what I”m going to call it: cognitive solipsism.

    Just as so many women cannot distinquish between experience and consequence, some people cannot distinquish between experience and existence.

    cognitive solipsism.

    Not sure if it’s a developmental disorder, or a failure of maturity, or an uneven evolutionary distribution of intellectual capacity… hmmm…..

    (edit: added)

    Existential Grammar is only important once an individual makes claims to truth because of a premise or conclusion. Now, I’might argue that it’s necessary to ensure you’re not making a mistake, but then, meaning for the purpose of ideation and testimony for the purpose of warrantying due diligence prior to making a truth claim are different things. So I would hope that people would grasp that almost all philosophical arguments I run across are SOPHOMORIC because of nothing more than trickery accomplished by conflation by using the verb to-be to make existential and deducible claims, rather than simply using existential grammar and making the fraudulent claim to existential ‘authority’.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-17 13:45:00 UTC