Curt Doolittle

Theme: Truth

  • Some think to build reality up from reason. Others: subtracting properties from

    Some think to build reality up from reason. Others: subtracting properties from reality and substituting logics.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-24 18:11:51 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/779745176965226496

    Reply addressees: @JimmyTrussels @Outsideness

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/779718728615428096

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/779718728615428096

  • E-Prime Lesson of The Day

      THE RULE: DISALLOWED WORDS – NO “GOD MODE SPEECH”. —E-Prime does not allow the conjugations of the verb “to be”, such as “be”, “am”, “is”, “are”, “was”, “were”, “been”, “being”; the archaic forms of to be (e.g. “art”, “wast”, “wert”), or the contractions of to be (e.g. “I’m”, “he’s”, ” she’s”, or “they’re”).— REVERSAL: ALLOWED WORDS —become; has; have; having; had (I’ve; you’ve), do; does; doing; did can; could, will; would (they’d), shall; should, ought, may; might; must remain, equal– TRANSLATE THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS INTO E-PRIME. 1) The cat is black. 2) Where have you been? 3) They were at the movies. 4) Where is john? He’s digging a ditch. 5) To be or not to be, That is the question. EPrime (E’) is harder to use than you’d think. It takes about three weeks to get it down in writing. Another three weeks to start to speak it. But it’s the first step in speaking operationally: Using A Consistent Frame Of Reference (point of view) when narrating a sequence of human actions, and thereby demonstrating that you know of what you speak. 🙂 EXERCISES – SUGGESTION AND DECEPTION Take a few SJW or other group criticisms and try to figure out what stated judgements, suggested substitutions, informational omissions, the individual is using to affect our interpretation of COSTS. (morality) 1) Stated Judgements (added by the speaker) 2) Suggested Substitutions (phrasing asking you to substitute information not stated) – my favorite is the NAP. 3) Intentional omissions (not stated by the speaker, and not suggested, but obscured) 4) Misinformation/Disinformation (intentional misdirections) 5) Saturation (Attempt to create evidence by your own resorting to intuition using all of the above.) EXERCISES – PROPERTY IN TOTO Make a list of property-in-toto categories. Revisit your sjw criticisms above. Attempt to discern what the speaker is attempting to steal from those categories using the methods of deception 1-5 above.

  • E-Prime Lesson of The Day

      THE RULE: DISALLOWED WORDS – NO “GOD MODE SPEECH”. —E-Prime does not allow the conjugations of the verb “to be”, such as “be”, “am”, “is”, “are”, “was”, “were”, “been”, “being”; the archaic forms of to be (e.g. “art”, “wast”, “wert”), or the contractions of to be (e.g. “I’m”, “he’s”, ” she’s”, or “they’re”).— REVERSAL: ALLOWED WORDS —become; has; have; having; had (I’ve; you’ve), do; does; doing; did can; could, will; would (they’d), shall; should, ought, may; might; must remain, equal– TRANSLATE THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS INTO E-PRIME. 1) The cat is black. 2) Where have you been? 3) They were at the movies. 4) Where is john? He’s digging a ditch. 5) To be or not to be, That is the question. EPrime (E’) is harder to use than you’d think. It takes about three weeks to get it down in writing. Another three weeks to start to speak it. But it’s the first step in speaking operationally: Using A Consistent Frame Of Reference (point of view) when narrating a sequence of human actions, and thereby demonstrating that you know of what you speak. 🙂 EXERCISES – SUGGESTION AND DECEPTION Take a few SJW or other group criticisms and try to figure out what stated judgements, suggested substitutions, informational omissions, the individual is using to affect our interpretation of COSTS. (morality) 1) Stated Judgements (added by the speaker) 2) Suggested Substitutions (phrasing asking you to substitute information not stated) – my favorite is the NAP. 3) Intentional omissions (not stated by the speaker, and not suggested, but obscured) 4) Misinformation/Disinformation (intentional misdirections) 5) Saturation (Attempt to create evidence by your own resorting to intuition using all of the above.) EXERCISES – PROPERTY IN TOTO Make a list of property-in-toto categories. Revisit your sjw criticisms above. Attempt to discern what the speaker is attempting to steal from those categories using the methods of deception 1-5 above.

  • E-PRIME LESSON OF THE DAY THE RULE: DISALLOWED WORDS – NO “GOD MODE SPEECH”. —

    E-PRIME LESSON OF THE DAY

    THE RULE: DISALLOWED WORDS – NO “GOD MODE SPEECH”.

    —E-Prime does not allow the conjugations of the verb “to be”, such as “be”, “am”, “is”, “are”, “was”, “were”, “been”, “being”; the archaic forms of to be (e.g. “art”, “wast”, “wert”), or the contractions of to be (e.g. “I’m”, “he’s”, ” she’s”, or “they’re”).—

    REVERSAL: ALLOWED WORDS

    —become; has; have; having; had (I’ve; you’ve), do; does; doing; did

    can; could, will; would (they’d), shall; should, ought, may; might; must

    remain, equal–

    TRANSLATE THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS INTO E-PRIME.

    1) The cat is black.

    2) Where have you been?

    3) They were at the movies.

    4) Where is john? He’s digging a ditch.

    5) To be or not to be, That is the question.

    EPrime (E’) is harder to use than you’d think. It takes about three weeks to get it down in writing. Another three weeks to start to speak it. But it’s the first step in speaking operationally: Using A Consistent Frame Of Reference (point of view) when narrating a sequence of human actions, and thereby demonstrating that you know of what you speak. 🙂

    EXERCISES – SUGGESTION AND DECEPTION

    Take a few SJW or other group criticisms and try to figure out what stated judgements, suggested substitutions, informational omissions, the individual is using to affect our interpretation of COSTS. (morality)

    1) Stated Judgements (added by the speaker)

    2) Suggested Substitutions (phrasing asking you to substitute information not stated) – my favorite is the NAP.

    3) Intentional omissions (not stated by the speaker, and not suggested, but obscured)

    4) Misinformation/Disinformation (intentional misdirections)

    5) Saturation (Attempt to create evidence by your own resorting to intuition using all of the above.)

    EXERCISES – PROPERTY IN TOTO

    Make a list of property-in-toto categories.

    Revisit your sjw criticisms above.

    Attempt to discern what the speaker is attempting to steal from those categories using the methods of deception 1-5 above.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-23 03:18:00 UTC

  • (Peter Boettke : Thinking about your unassuming but thought-provoking quip on th

    (Peter Boettke : Thinking about your unassuming but thought-provoking quip on the importance of the P in PhD. Because I wrestle with this problem of the ‘need to reform philosophy’ that Locke set out to achieve in his era – and we must do again in ours. And, since what’s missing from philosophy is any notion of cost, I might go as far as saying that it’s absence of the insights of economics – even such things as the commensurability provided by money and prices – that have doomed the philosophical profession to empty verbalisms.

    I OFTEN feel like mathematicians and economists could do with a better understanding of philosophy. But I ALWAYS feel like philosophers could do with a better understanding of economics. I can’t think of any of the insights I have produced that would have been possible without econ, and particularly micro econ, and most importantly Austrian econ. And while I have been critical of the abuse of Mises by Rothbard, I am increasingly concerned that no one seems to be taking mises half-solution to the great logical problem of our age, any further.

    There is a terrible need for philosophy, and terrible need for its reformation. But I am pretty sure that the reason that terrible need exists, is the lack of accounting of costs, opportunities and incentives provided by economic philosophers. Philosophy is missing “demonstrated commensurability” across differences in perceptions, experiences, memories, judgements, knowledge, labor and advocacy, by different demands of different people, with different needs.)

    (Sorry if this is out of line in some way but I have very few people to think out loud to on these matters.)

    – Cheers

    (edited. like everything I seem to write on an iphone needs to be. ) 🙂

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-22 10:05:00 UTC

  • STEVE HOROWITZ’S OBFUSCATORY JUSTIFICATIONISM (argumentative weaponry. use it.)

    STEVE HOROWITZ’S OBFUSCATORY JUSTIFICATIONISM

    (argumentative weaponry. use it.)

    He’s using the ancient technique of stating a Half Truth for the purpose of “suggesting” a lie.

    Cultural Marxism is taught in nearly all classes. The fact that the Paleos all use Marx and Marxism as a bucket-label for Marxism(social science), Communism(politics), Socialism(economics), Freudianism(psychology), Boazianism(anthropology), cultural marxism(aesthetics), Rothbardian libertinism(normative communism), Straussian neo-Conservatism(Zionism), is just a matter of verbal convenience. Which is obvious once you rattle off all those pseudosciences. We just say Marx and Marxist, and Marxism. What we should say is “Cosmopolitanism”: Jewish Pseudoscientific Enlightenment – the second “Great Lie”. The Counter-Enlightenment against completion of the enlightenment by Maxwell, Darwin, Spencer, Nietzsche, and Poincare.

    So ask the question differently: show me where they teach natural law? You won’t find it outside of a few Christian universities, and they don’t even understand that “Natural Law= Social Science”. They teach it as philosophy or religion – not science.

    I don’t know why I have to apologize every day for my ancestors failed colonialism, despite dragging humanity out of ignorance, starvation, poverty, superstition, and disease, yet the other tribes don’t need to apologize for the damage done by their reactions to the enlightenment.

    (Please don’t jump on the anti-Semite bus ok? I care about fixing problems. I don’t think jews know what they’re doing any more than we do, women do, or any other group does. It’s all information problems and genetic adaptation problem. Both of which can be solved by institutions that transform us away from deception and closer to truth.)

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-22 05:56:00 UTC

  • Complete sentences solve a lot of problems. 2 + 2 = 4 Assuming I start by observ

    Complete sentences solve a lot of problems.

    2 + 2 = 4

    Assuming I start by observing two of something identical, and I add two more of that same thing to my observation, I will observe a total of four of the same thing; where the names 2(two) and 4(four) refer to positional names of quantities specified by the system of positional naming.

    Numbers consist of operationally constructed positional names, corresponding to some quantity of some consistent category.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-22 03:38:00 UTC

  • I don’t really know myself what macro problems I intuit need solving. But here i

    I don’t really know myself what macro problems I intuit need solving. But here is some clarity on categorical consistency.

    As you probably know, I see the problem of ignorance error bias and deception as one of laundering information by exposing unknowns, and prohibiting the obscurantism of ignorance by loading, framing, substitution, suggestion, switching existential point of view, and switching argumentative method.

    While any of these techniques may be used to convey meaning they cannot be used for argument and deduction with the same veracity as consistency in argumentative method under the existential point of view, moral, categorical, logical, empirical, and scope consistency.

    Yet the montage most people argue with consists of precisely these conflations.

    Why? Because we removed grammar, logic, and rhetoric and we failed to add economics – incentives and cost – to the educational system.

    Not just because teachers would have trouble teaching. But because students would stop buying the pseudoscientific messages.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-22 03:08:00 UTC

  • I believe in elves ghosts and Angels. But they exist only in our imaginations. M

    I believe in elves ghosts and Angels. But they exist only in our imaginations.

    Mixing truth, history, myth, literature, fantasising, and dream states is just and act of deception by conflation.

    We can compare truth and any other state to determine what we may learn from either.

    But our ability to compare by analogy for the purpose of meaning does not mean these things possess equal truth content.

    They don’t.

    All religions are extremely disciplined forms of literature no different from the Star Wars universe or the world of the Greek myths or that of the Upanishads.

    This is all fantasy literature for the purpose of CONFLATION, thus mixing some combination of psychology, literature, law, and education.

    In the west we disallow this conflation and instead specialise in psychology literature, law, and education.

    We do this to force them into competition so that they cannot be used for deception.

    The west was infected by the oriental technique of literary deception – probably because of Alexander.

    But just because fantasy literature is easier for simple minds to assimilate that does not mean the consequences of simplicity do not produce consequences that manufacture ignorance poverty and deceit.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-22 02:51:00 UTC

  • Cultural differences. Legal dispute. In America, lying if any kind is a serious

    Cultural differences.

    Legal dispute.

    In America, lying if any kind is a serious thing and reason for the judge to decide against you. In Ukraine lying is a reasonable response to uncertainty and distrust.

    Ukrainian police are much more akin to American sheriffs. They talk to you. They are reasonable. The try to understand they don’t try to find an opportunity to trip you up or prosecute you and make inquiry someone else’s problem.

    I also prefer to pay a twenty dollar bribe that improves his income rather than a 200 dollar fine that enriches the bureaucracy.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-21 06:36:00 UTC