Curt Doolittle

Theme: Truth

  • NONE OF US IS EQUAL We are not equal. We grant each other the pretense of equali

    NONE OF US IS EQUAL

    We are not equal. We grant each other the pretense of equality in order to discover through discourse and debate, the truth free of error, bias, suggestion, obscurantism, and deceit. We grant each other equality under the law to assist one another in cooperating productively and without conflict and retaliation across our various stations and abilities. But we are in no way equal.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-25 18:32:00 UTC

  • All Speech Is Negotiation

    –“Most conclusions are really excuses to stop thinking; and most arguments (especially without ontological integrity) are a defenses for excuses rather than warranties of conclusions.”—Bill Joslin BINGO. All speech is negotiation. Truth is not natural to man .This is why science has been such an expensive and time consuming project that has taken us 2500 years: we fight it at every turn.

  • All Speech Is Negotiation

    –“Most conclusions are really excuses to stop thinking; and most arguments (especially without ontological integrity) are a defenses for excuses rather than warranties of conclusions.”—Bill Joslin BINGO. All speech is negotiation. Truth is not natural to man .This is why science has been such an expensive and time consuming project that has taken us 2500 years: we fight it at every turn.

  • There Is Nothing To Find In The Lies of the Conflationary Prophets

    THERE IS NOTHING TO FIND IN THE LIES OF THE CONFLATIONARY PROPHETS BUT INFANTILISM. —“It seems that, in Genesis, God has legs, and doesn’t know the answers to the questions he asks. It confirms my inclination to the Marcionite Heresy.”— There is nothing there to find. We have our fairy tales, and myths. We have our origin story: the Iliad and the odyssey We have books of great literature. Books of great ideas (moral literature). Books of great history. Books of great science. Books of great law. Books of great war.

    We have imitation of kin for infants. We have heroic imitation for children. We have virtue ethics for the adolescent. We have rule ethics for the adult. We have outcome ethics for the mature. CONFLATIONARY SIMPLICITY vs DEFLATIONARY COMPLEXITY The attractiveness of religious parable is that it’s conflated (all the disciplines are conflated into a single narrative). And the simple beast in each of us prefers to call upon one ‘unit of measure’ (method of deciding). But what separates man from animal is reason, and human from man, is deflation: the ability to compare multiple dimensions. So while we harbor in us a romantic childish animal that wants to save the burden of learning and cognition by relying on the reductive, conflation of simple ideal types, virtues, and parables, rather than identities, measurements, spectra, equilibria, and models, we merely infantilize ourselves by returning to infantile means of conflationary measurement. THERE ARE NO ANSWERS IN THE LIES OF THE CONFLATIONISTS. End the lies.

  • There Is Nothing To Find In The Lies of the Conflationary Prophets

    THERE IS NOTHING TO FIND IN THE LIES OF THE CONFLATIONARY PROPHETS BUT INFANTILISM. —“It seems that, in Genesis, God has legs, and doesn’t know the answers to the questions he asks. It confirms my inclination to the Marcionite Heresy.”— There is nothing there to find. We have our fairy tales, and myths. We have our origin story: the Iliad and the odyssey We have books of great literature. Books of great ideas (moral literature). Books of great history. Books of great science. Books of great law. Books of great war.

    We have imitation of kin for infants. We have heroic imitation for children. We have virtue ethics for the adolescent. We have rule ethics for the adult. We have outcome ethics for the mature. CONFLATIONARY SIMPLICITY vs DEFLATIONARY COMPLEXITY The attractiveness of religious parable is that it’s conflated (all the disciplines are conflated into a single narrative). And the simple beast in each of us prefers to call upon one ‘unit of measure’ (method of deciding). But what separates man from animal is reason, and human from man, is deflation: the ability to compare multiple dimensions. So while we harbor in us a romantic childish animal that wants to save the burden of learning and cognition by relying on the reductive, conflation of simple ideal types, virtues, and parables, rather than identities, measurements, spectra, equilibria, and models, we merely infantilize ourselves by returning to infantile means of conflationary measurement. THERE ARE NO ANSWERS IN THE LIES OF THE CONFLATIONISTS. End the lies.

  • Defining Philosophy

    WORKING ON DEFINING PHILOSOPHY I have been working on defining philosophy (because like truth, it wasn’t defined before). And you know, there are a few ways to approach it: western philosophy (argumentative methodology) or philosophy in all cultures (multiple argumentative methodologies). And whether the philosophy is literary and imaginative (possibilities), escapist (most), a form of assistance(sinic), or problem solving (western). And what constitutes truth in each methodology – which differs dramatically from civilization to civilization. Now, I’m going to say that philosophy is to reason what apperception is to consciousness: the re-measuring of all related relations in response to the new measure provided by the new information. In other words: recursive recalculation in response to new measurements. The difference being that while cognition and apperception are continuous autonomic processes, reason and philosophy are guided processes, in which we devote (concentrate) resources (mental) to achieve desired ends. This is, I think, the correct description of the processes of reason and philosophy. Reason measures. Philosophy seeks commensurability of new ideas to old Ideas and refactors old ideas recursively as a consequence. At this point we should see the general union of neurology, computer science, and information: commensurability that makes judgment (comparison) possible. Western philosophy differs in its analytic (deconflated) versus synthetic (conflated) method of reasoning. The categories of philosophy form an expanding hierarchy: – existence (actionability) – epistemology (knowledge) – truth (testimony) – ethics and morality (cooperation in production ) – politics (cooperation in production of commons ) – group evolutionary strategy (competition against other groups) – aesthetics (means of associating emotions with principles that advance all of the above) And we make use of a hierarchy of argument types: – reason – rationalism (non-contradiction) – logic (internal consistency) – empiricism (external correspondence) – operationalism (existential possibility) – voluntarism (moral possibility) And we make use of a hierarchy of measurements – identity (category) – counting (measurement) – arithmetic (operations) – mathematics (sets) – geometry (space) – calculus (change) – post-euclidian calculus (logical rather than physical relations) And we practice different fields: – physical science(s) – cooperative science(s) – informational science(s) – aesthetic science(s). (and we conflate these fields as needed to produce goods, services, and information) And we conduct these arguments using different languages and methods appropriate to each of the classes. And each language places greater demand on the individual’s ability to reason. So my view of philosophy proper is an analytic deconflated process by which we recursively render commensurable the full range of stimuli from the most primitive to the most complex. Everything else I would tend to describe as moral literature, or literary law. I don’t see philosophy proper anywhere other than in the west and a touch of it in the east. What I see is analogies to philosophy proper, that we have no names for, but can be decomposed into the forms of conflation that they use, across fields, measurements, and argument types.

  • Defining Philosophy

    WORKING ON DEFINING PHILOSOPHY I have been working on defining philosophy (because like truth, it wasn’t defined before). And you know, there are a few ways to approach it: western philosophy (argumentative methodology) or philosophy in all cultures (multiple argumentative methodologies). And whether the philosophy is literary and imaginative (possibilities), escapist (most), a form of assistance(sinic), or problem solving (western). And what constitutes truth in each methodology – which differs dramatically from civilization to civilization. Now, I’m going to say that philosophy is to reason what apperception is to consciousness: the re-measuring of all related relations in response to the new measure provided by the new information. In other words: recursive recalculation in response to new measurements. The difference being that while cognition and apperception are continuous autonomic processes, reason and philosophy are guided processes, in which we devote (concentrate) resources (mental) to achieve desired ends. This is, I think, the correct description of the processes of reason and philosophy. Reason measures. Philosophy seeks commensurability of new ideas to old Ideas and refactors old ideas recursively as a consequence. At this point we should see the general union of neurology, computer science, and information: commensurability that makes judgment (comparison) possible. Western philosophy differs in its analytic (deconflated) versus synthetic (conflated) method of reasoning. The categories of philosophy form an expanding hierarchy: – existence (actionability) – epistemology (knowledge) – truth (testimony) – ethics and morality (cooperation in production ) – politics (cooperation in production of commons ) – group evolutionary strategy (competition against other groups) – aesthetics (means of associating emotions with principles that advance all of the above) And we make use of a hierarchy of argument types: – reason – rationalism (non-contradiction) – logic (internal consistency) – empiricism (external correspondence) – operationalism (existential possibility) – voluntarism (moral possibility) And we make use of a hierarchy of measurements – identity (category) – counting (measurement) – arithmetic (operations) – mathematics (sets) – geometry (space) – calculus (change) – post-euclidian calculus (logical rather than physical relations) And we practice different fields: – physical science(s) – cooperative science(s) – informational science(s) – aesthetic science(s). (and we conflate these fields as needed to produce goods, services, and information) And we conduct these arguments using different languages and methods appropriate to each of the classes. And each language places greater demand on the individual’s ability to reason. So my view of philosophy proper is an analytic deconflated process by which we recursively render commensurable the full range of stimuli from the most primitive to the most complex. Everything else I would tend to describe as moral literature, or literary law. I don’t see philosophy proper anywhere other than in the west and a touch of it in the east. What I see is analogies to philosophy proper, that we have no names for, but can be decomposed into the forms of conflation that they use, across fields, measurements, and argument types.

  • How To Prosecute Rather Than Convince

    HOW TO PROSECUTE RATHER THAN CONVINCE We have moral cause (genocide). We have moral authority (a century of lies). We have sufficient violence. We have opportunity (loss of any credibility in the honesty of our opponents.)

    So, we have means, motive and opportunity. PROSECUTION 1) Prosecute people to demonstrate that they are liars and thieves. 2) Ask why they will not trade with you instead of lie, cheat and steal. 3) Tell them that if we disagree and they force no costs upon us, our kin, and our civilization, then that is merely an agreement to disagree. If they wish to trade what we wish for what they wish then that is merely an agreement to cooperate on means, even though we seek different ends. But if they will not respect what is ours and leave us in peace, will not compromise by trade, and instead seek to impose costs upon us, our kin, and our civilizations, by proxy via the force of government, or by deceit, or by conversion, or by invasion, or by violence, then it is only rational that we will resort ourselves to violence, displacement, deportation, enslavement, and truthfulness. We are left with no choice but to prosecute enemies by punishment, expulsion, enslavement, or death. This is what I mean by prosecution. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.

  • How To Prosecute Rather Than Convince

    HOW TO PROSECUTE RATHER THAN CONVINCE We have moral cause (genocide). We have moral authority (a century of lies). We have sufficient violence. We have opportunity (loss of any credibility in the honesty of our opponents.)

    So, we have means, motive and opportunity. PROSECUTION 1) Prosecute people to demonstrate that they are liars and thieves. 2) Ask why they will not trade with you instead of lie, cheat and steal. 3) Tell them that if we disagree and they force no costs upon us, our kin, and our civilization, then that is merely an agreement to disagree. If they wish to trade what we wish for what they wish then that is merely an agreement to cooperate on means, even though we seek different ends. But if they will not respect what is ours and leave us in peace, will not compromise by trade, and instead seek to impose costs upon us, our kin, and our civilizations, by proxy via the force of government, or by deceit, or by conversion, or by invasion, or by violence, then it is only rational that we will resort ourselves to violence, displacement, deportation, enslavement, and truthfulness. We are left with no choice but to prosecute enemies by punishment, expulsion, enslavement, or death. This is what I mean by prosecution. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.

  • Physical Laws, Natural Laws, Information Laws.

    LAWS OF NATURE, NATURAL LAW, AND LAWS OF INFORMATION 1) Laws of nature (physical laws) and 2) Natural laws (laws of cooperation), and 3) Truth (laws of information) consist of a spectrum dependent upon each other.