Curt Doolittle

Theme: Truth

  • Precision in Argument vs Transfer of Meaning

    Most of what I encounter is people trying to talk about precise things dependent upon reason and deduction, while relying on imprecise language from which reason and deduction are largely impossible. One cannot make deductive arguments from the common speech – which is full of error and ignorance. There is a very good reason that each discipline uses specific terminoligy despite the confusion that this creates for non-members: some degree of precision is necessary for the purpose of argument.

    Law still uses latin terms for good reason: they’re not open to colloquial interpretation.

  • Precision in Argument vs Transfer of Meaning

    Most of what I encounter is people trying to talk about precise things dependent upon reason and deduction, while relying on imprecise language from which reason and deduction are largely impossible. One cannot make deductive arguments from the common speech – which is full of error and ignorance. There is a very good reason that each discipline uses specific terminoligy despite the confusion that this creates for non-members: some degree of precision is necessary for the purpose of argument.

    Law still uses latin terms for good reason: they’re not open to colloquial interpretation.

  • Most of what I encounter is people trying to talk about precise things dependent

    Most of what I encounter is people trying to talk about precise things dependent upon reason and deduction, while relying on imprecise language from which reason and deduction are largely impossible.

    One cannot make deductive arguments from the common speech – which is full of error and ignorance.

    There is a very good reason that each discipline uses specific terminoligy despite the confusion that this creates for non-members: some degree of precision is necessary for the purpose of argument.

    Law still uses latin terms for good reason: they’re not open to colloquial interpretation.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-19 10:13:00 UTC

  • GOOD CRITICS HELP YOU PRODUCE GREAT WORK (more on heroism and the west) A good c

    GOOD CRITICS HELP YOU PRODUCE GREAT WORK

    (more on heroism and the west)

    A good critic is a precious thing. I love good criticism. I make most of my progress on tough issues because I’m challenged by good critics. And unfortunately, good critics are rare. Frank Lovell, Ayelam Valentine Agaliba, Josh Jeppson, Adam Voight, Bruce (I forget his name), and a few others have been particularly influential in providing criticism that was deep enough that I was able to make progress using it.

    Josh has been pushing me very hard for over a year on Aryanism and has clearly sensed it from an individual rather than social point of view (conceptual grammar so to speak).

    I have an ‘impersonal’ view of Aryanism – or all social orders for that matter. I think more in production, costs, logistics, and strategy like general, or a governor, than in the tactics, and rewards, and experiences of a warrior. So I tend to think of the resources necessary to conduct war using training and technology, rather than the inspiration of the individuals who do the fighting. I would rather give them material confidence in weapons, and strategy, than inspiration on the field. I am not a fan of poetic speech. A soldier who has material confidence does not need inspiration if he thinks he will win. And it is the abilty to win without inspiration that I seek to provide.

    But that doesn’t mean that don’t recognize truth in criticisms.

    And it wasn’t until last night that Josh voiced his criticism in a way that I could sleep on it a bit, and convert it to ‘scientific’ language.

    And while Axial-Age epistemology (the social order of power at the time), and the various concepts of truth therein are probably the first differentiators between the intellectual traditions of cultures and civilizations, I think the normative channeling of dominance that results from that social order in the axial age, is an insight that can help explain far more about various civilizations than can truth alone.

    Heroism is interesting in that it trains us from birth, not to suppress dominance but to channel it toward commons-producing ends. This individual competition for dominance by positive means is what produces over time the high trust society, in the same way it produced a high trust warrior ruling-class that we call ‘Aryanism’.

    i suspect that if I do the research (which might be expensive or time-consuming) that testimonial martial truth(bearing a cost) and heroism(bearing a cost), and dominance (demonstrating superiority empirically) produce a market for excellence in all walks of life. And that this market ‘calculates’ excellence, and is the CAUSE of our interest in economic markets that ‘calculate’ excellences as well.

    i will continue to work with this for a while. But the central insight that Truth, Heroism, and Dominance Markets calculate faster than the alternative social orders, fits well with my prior arguments that common law calculates suppression of parasitism faster, and that markets calculate innovations faster, and that frequent small wars calculate innovations faster, and that many small nations calculate innovations faster.

    And that the reason for the rapid advancement of the west in the ancient and modern worlds has been that we simply ‘calculate'(adapt and innovate) faster. And so it is not impressive if “china got there first’ so to speak, simply because they started first. The question is rather, what model will continually outpace all other models in innovation regardless of wealth and regardless of population size.

    And I think that is the answer to western civilization.

    We are not first we are fastest.

    Dominance, Sovereignty, Heroism, Truth, Voluntary Militia: The only possible institutions under that set of values are markets. And markets like cavalry that makes choices, are faster than footsoldiers that follow orders.

    it’s that simple.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-18 09:21:00 UTC

  • “They will rally against us with the criticism of ‘dehumanization’ when we can c

    —“They will rally against us with the criticism of ‘dehumanization’ when we can consistently return the criticism with ‘romanticism and pseudoscience’: in other words – you’re just lazy. Confusing conviction with convenience. We are confused. We don’t conflate. We’re men of the west. They are the enemy because they are predatory parasitic animals, and animals need us to domesticate them to make the world safe for Humans.”—Curt Doolittle

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-18 08:31:00 UTC

  • ORDER IN COMMUNICATION Chaos (non-identity) Identity (existence) Tautology(neces

    ORDER IN COMMUNICATION

    Chaos (non-identity)

    Identity (existence)

    Tautology(necessity),

    Proof(possibility),

    Rational(potential),

    Literature(narrative/meaningful)

    Daydreaming -stream of consicusness – (free association )

    COSTS OF TRUTH

    Hierarchy of Truths by internality to externality of costs.:

    1) True enough to imagine a conceptual relationship

    2) True enough for me to feel good about myself.

    3) True enough for me to take actions that produce positive results.

    4) True enough for me to not cause others to react negatively to me.

    5) True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion among my fellow people with similar values.

    6) True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion across different peoples with different values.

    7) True regardless of all opinions or perspectives.

    8) Tautologically true: in that the two things are equal.

    OPERATIONALIZED (by Moritz Bierling)

    1) I recognize that when I try to form a connection between these concepts (follow this recipe), I can make it work.

    2) I recognize that when I think about this recipe, I feel good about my ability to make this connection mentally (follow the sequence/relation).

    3) I recognize that when I do the thing this recipe tells me to, I benefit sufficiently to outweigh the cost of the action.

    4) I recognize that when I do the thing this recipe tells me to, others react negatively to my action and therefore costs me something.

    5) I recognize that when I use this recipe, I can resolve a conflict without subjective opinion among my fellow people with similar values.

    6) I recognize that when I use this recipe, I can resolve a conflict without subjective opinion across different peoples with different values.

    7) I recognize that this recipe works for everyone at all times under all circumstances.

    8) I recognize that this recipe describes completely the thing it produces.

    EXPLANATION (by Moritz Bierling)

    “Recipes unlock opportunities of varying size with respect to the acquisition of energy at lower cost than the actor following the recipe expends, and recipes require the actor applying them to expend different amounts of energy depending on their complexity and the number of steps they contain, and we call those recipes more true that contain fewer errors, and those recipes resulting in the highest energy yield while requiring the least amount of steps we call of high utility.”

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-18 08:30:00 UTC

  • “WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE IDEA OF A UNIVERSAL MORAL GRAMMAR?”— (probably impor

    —“WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE IDEA OF A UNIVERSAL MORAL GRAMMAR?”—

    (probably important)

    Well, while I agree that for our level of intellectual capacity that we practice an {actor, verb, noun} grammar, and that such a grammar, similar to logic but evocatively rather than critically allows us to speak and transfer experiences by association, in increasingly complex sets, which the audience consistently re-sorts to produce something sensible tot hem, I also think the presentation is pseudoscientific, and that all human emotions(self) and moral intuitions (others) are reducible to changes in the state of inventory of one asset or another, across a very broad set of assets from the informational, to the habitual, to the normative, to the institutional, to the physical, to kin, to body and life.

    The universe is telling us something very clearly: it’s very simple. As part of the universe, the human mind is a very simple thing, which achieves the appearance of complexity through sheer numbers and layers of neurons. We are part of the physical universe. We are bound by its laws. The most basic of those laws is that we must conserve energy to persist our lives, our kin, and our offspring, while at the same time transforming the universe’s current condition into one that is our benefit.

    Our problem in understanding our minds, is not discovering complexity, but discovering simplicity, by removing our imaginary content, error, bias, justification, wishful thinking, suggestion, loading and overloading, and deceit from our ideas – each of which is produced by free association. Albeit, the mathematics (measurement) of that free association appears to be as difficult for us to measure as is the subatomic universe.

    Nature does not need to reduce memory to verbal symbolism in order for us to act. We need to reduce memory to verbal symbolism to perform an inexpensive means of communicating complex memories.

    We need to reduce memory to a model only in so far as we wish to understand our limits of communication. And we need to understand the limits of our communication in order to eliminate error bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, loading and overloading, justification, and deceit from those communications.

    We cannot necessarily increase the density of information except through habituation (practice). Yet we can reduce the error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, loading, overloading, pseudorationalism, pseudoscience, justification, and deceit from it. Which appears to be the only remaining purpose of philosophy that is not possible to produce by other, superior means.

    The Universe is Simple.

    We Imagine by free association.

    We test for possibility by ‘wayfinding’

    We launder possibility by criticism.

    We use criticism to perform due diligence against:

    1 – Ignorance and Error,

    2 – Bias, Wishful Thinking, Suggestion, Moral Loading and;

    3 – Overloading, Justification, Obscurant Mysticism, Pseudorationalism, Pseudoscience, and;

    4 – Information hiding and outright Deceit.

    We perform due diligence by testing for consistency (determinism):

    1 – categorical (identity / properties)

    2 – logical (internal consistency / verbal / sets)

    3 – relational (relational consistency / mathematical / logical instruments )

    4 – empirical (external correspondence / physical instruments )

    5 – existential (existential possibility / operational language )

    6 – moral (volitional possibility / subjective testing of rational voluntary exchange)

    7 – fully accounted, parsimonious and limited (that we have fully accounted for that which we speak of and that we include nothing that we do not speak of.

    If we have performed this due diligence, and warranty that we have done so, (‘skin in the game’) then it is quite difficult to speak falsely.

    Meaning != Truth. Meaning = Justification of prior knowledge. That is all we can say.

    It says nothing about the truth of any proposition.

    This is the central failure of philosophical inquiry: justificationary meaning over critical truth.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-17 09:00:00 UTC

  • “Philosophy is easy when you don’t have to tell the truth.”—Steve Lacasse

    —“Philosophy is easy when you don’t have to tell the truth.”—Steve Lacasse

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-16 15:57:00 UTC

  • A Few Personal Notes on Rorty

    5-Literature 4-Religion 3-Philosophy (Moral Entrepreneurs) 2-Intellectual History 1-History 0-Law 1-Science —Curt Tautology(necessary), Proof(possible), Rational(potential), Literature(meaningful) —Curt We are all relying upon narratives that provide decidability for the purpose of pursuing allies in the achievement of a condition, not truth. We only rely upon a truthful narrative when it assists us attracting allies in the achievement of a condition. –Curt Shinto when we’re born, Confucian when we’re adolescent, Christian when we’re married, Buddhist when we die. — Japanese Saying Rationality – in that one consents to be persuaded – is a social virtue not a human faculty. Reason is a human faculty. Rationality is a moral virtue – a property of cooperation. — Rorty restated by Doolittle “It’s not a surprise that religion, democracy, and science, are in conflict: power.”–Rorty “Another sense of philosophy describes how various ideas fit together.” — Rorty. Well, I would say that philosophy consists of logic (necessity), criticism (science), integration(rationality), advocacy(moral literature), and imagining (fantasy literature). And that religion conflates advocacy, imagining, and Law (force). –Curt “if we take care of education and democratic freedom then truth will take care of itself”–Dewey. Well, it turns out that Dewey/Rorty are wrong. Just the opposite. – Curt Judaism is, like American pragmatism, a feminine philosophy, in that consequences to the commons are irrelevant. All that matters is the consequences to those collectively extant in the moment. — Curt Rorty makes the progressive error of the steady-state. We always fight the red queen. We have lost that under the temporary prosperity of industrialism. But the red queen has shifted just as crime has shifted. We compete against economies and resources and institutions, not against farming and territory and demographics. — Curt What objectively right vs objectively better = Survival of your gene pool. It is objectively right, and objectively better. — Curt

  • A Few Personal Notes on Rorty

    5-Literature 4-Religion 3-Philosophy (Moral Entrepreneurs) 2-Intellectual History 1-History 0-Law 1-Science —Curt Tautology(necessary), Proof(possible), Rational(potential), Literature(meaningful) —Curt We are all relying upon narratives that provide decidability for the purpose of pursuing allies in the achievement of a condition, not truth. We only rely upon a truthful narrative when it assists us attracting allies in the achievement of a condition. –Curt Shinto when we’re born, Confucian when we’re adolescent, Christian when we’re married, Buddhist when we die. — Japanese Saying Rationality – in that one consents to be persuaded – is a social virtue not a human faculty. Reason is a human faculty. Rationality is a moral virtue – a property of cooperation. — Rorty restated by Doolittle “It’s not a surprise that religion, democracy, and science, are in conflict: power.”–Rorty “Another sense of philosophy describes how various ideas fit together.” — Rorty. Well, I would say that philosophy consists of logic (necessity), criticism (science), integration(rationality), advocacy(moral literature), and imagining (fantasy literature). And that religion conflates advocacy, imagining, and Law (force). –Curt “if we take care of education and democratic freedom then truth will take care of itself”–Dewey. Well, it turns out that Dewey/Rorty are wrong. Just the opposite. – Curt Judaism is, like American pragmatism, a feminine philosophy, in that consequences to the commons are irrelevant. All that matters is the consequences to those collectively extant in the moment. — Curt Rorty makes the progressive error of the steady-state. We always fight the red queen. We have lost that under the temporary prosperity of industrialism. But the red queen has shifted just as crime has shifted. We compete against economies and resources and institutions, not against farming and territory and demographics. — Curt What objectively right vs objectively better = Survival of your gene pool. It is objectively right, and objectively better. — Curt