Interesting phenomenon. If I say something that requires a bit of contemplation, people get it correctly – with work.
If I say the same thing fairly colloquially, people react to it without thinking about it – usually by projecting their pet issues.
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-26 07:32:00 UTC
Some people ask if they approve
Some people ask if it’s good.
Some people ask if it’s true.
Some people ask if it’s fraud.
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-26 05:15:00 UTC
Taunting, interrupting, interference in the course of movement, promotion, advertising – these break the contract for discourse in which we forgo violence for the purpose of discovering either the truth, or beneficial self interest. There is no other common good.
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-26 03:40:00 UTC
POSITIVE PHILOSOPHY AND NEGATIVE LAW
If you want to inspire, inform, and rally, i think that’s a domain of ‘MEANING”, whereas if I want to scrutinize your use of inspiration, information, and rallying that’s a question of ‘TRUTH’ as in DECIDABILITY (science).
Since I think the jury is in, and that the past century was lost as Hayek suggested to social pseudoscience for the purpose of conducting theft on a previously unheard of scale, then we have the questions of golden (meaning) and silver (truth) rule.
We attempt to advocate and inform, and prohibit and prosecute.
As far as I know, truth requires criticism not justification. So at this point we are pretty clear that religion is positive and aspirational and justificationary for the purpose of rallying, and law is negative, prohibitive, critical for the purpose of preventing parasitism>
And if we wish to unite philosophy science, morality and law, then at this point we have done so.
Some of us inspire and explore and some of us prosecute and judge. And it is the competition between innovation and prosecution that we find truth and utility and morality.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-25 07:46:00 UTC
—“CURT, YOUR CRITICISM OF PHILOSOPHY IS AN INTERESTING PHILOSOPHY”—
Irony appreciated. Even if it’s just a play on words.
The question is not whether it’s a personal philosophy (means of PREFERENTIAL or UTILITARIAN choice) but whether its a method of universal DECIDABILITY independent of preferences and utility. (truth).
In other words, is it a “Law” of nature, as in a “Natural Law”.
Propositions need only be reciprocally decidable . If they are decidable, then the question is why one would attempt to demonstrate that they are not?
As in law, which is the origin of western philosophy, not until late conflated with religion, decidability is provided by (a) deception and (b) involuntary transfer.
As far as I can tell, this is the purpose of most UNDECIDABLE philosophy, like religious law before it: fraud.
Which is not what I expected when I started working on these issues.
The philosophers are often circumventing costs, and transfers, and claiming that they’re pursuing truth.
What I find, is that they are all too often, engaged in fraud.
So instead of testing for truth, I first test for theft.
This is the difference between the philosophical search for AGREEMENT and the legal search for theft.
Ergo, It is law that is our western philosophy(prohibition, decidability, criticism) and everything else is religion (aspiration, negotiation, justification).
The west didn’t conflate truth, law, politics, and religion.
We have always preserved competition as means of ongoing calculation, and thereby avoided stagnation.
But Egyptian-Judeo-Christian-Muslim totalitarianism did the opposite. They created authority (monopoly) by conflating different disciplines with different purposes. This is why Egypt froze, jews contributed nothing until they were forced by Europeans into the enlightenment, Muslims appear to have taken credit but not developed anything, and certainly, as soon as the common people adopted it, were insulated, and why the west stagnated for a thousand years, albeit under constant onslaught of the commercial Mediterranean by Muslim pirates and war.
Seek first fraud, not agreement.
Our civic cult is law.
We are prosecutors.
Curt Doolittle
The Cult of Non-Submission
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-25 06:23:00 UTC
ANOTHER DAMNING CRITICISM OF PHILOSOPHY
I am pretty convinced that the subjective experiential analysis and narration in philosophy is as pseudoscientific as subjective, reported, and deductive projection in psychology.
Psychology reformed, by adopting operational language, (they use the term operationalism) because during the 70’s and 80’s the discipline was increasingly cast as a pseudoscience, and the threat from cognitive science, economics, pharma, and medicine threatened all the income of the entire industry from counseling, to medical, to academics, to research – just as philosophy is today threatened.
So the subjective narrative of philosophy is the reason for it’s defunding, the reason for the lack of quality of papers published, and the irrelevance of philosophy in the current political debate – leaving philsophy not much more than a flexible personal religion on one hand, a set of habits to correct some subset of our cognitive biases, and the split between subjective, logical, and scientific is nearly complete.
Now I can understand that if you spend enough time in the language of any pseudoscience, or any discipline(law), or any literature, or any mythology, or any religion, that you might adopt the framing of that discipline. But the cross-disciplinary frame – the universal language, the language that has the greatest truth content regardless of frame, is the one that is:
1 – categorically consistent (identity)
2 – internally consistent (logically consistent)
3 – externally consistent (empirically consistent)
4 – existentially consistent (operationally stated)
A good scientist will also attempt to bound his arguments against selection bias, and overreach by defining:
5 – Limits, and Fully Accounting for activity within them. (Parsimony)
And a good lawyer, financier, or social scientists will attempt to ensure his arguments against liability for harm by defining:
6 – fully informed, productive, reciprocity. (morality)
So no, just as psychology could produce some insight despite the entire framework from freud onward being pseudoscience for the purpose of authoritarian demand for (false) homogeneity, casting deviation from compliance as illness. And just as Frued was writing in response to Nietzche. And just as Boazian anthropology was a pseudoscience invented purposely to combat Darwin. And just as Marx was writing his extremely complex deception to counter the classical liberal empiricism; … each of these pseudosciences could produce some insights.
However, each of them caused tragic harm, each was a pseudoscience, and each was reformed by science. And even science reformed by the simple technique of adopting operational language.
Conversely, the great lies, pseudosciences, pseudorationalism, political correctness, and all other major deceits of the twentieth century were carried out through subjective narration.
So my view is that almost no good philosophy is written. If it is it doesn’t use introspective voice. It uses operational language, existentially consistent, and free of projection, manipulation, suggestion, overloading, framing, error, bias, and deceit.
And so yes, it’s a damning criticism of the failure of 20th century philosophy. Because empirically, it’s been a disaster for humanity on the scale of the conflation of law and religion in the great deceits of scriptural monotheism.
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-25 04:37:00 UTC
Philosophers place greater weight upon FEELING, and the cognitive scientists place greater weight on REPORTING, which tells us nothing about TRUTH but a great deal about the instrumentation available to SUBJECTIVE introspective and OBJECTIVE empirical testing.
My experience is that while in retrospect the initial stage of awareness is arguably ‘me’ or ‘i’, while in that state any such ‘experience’ (feeling) other than ‘satisfaction/dissatisfaction’, ‘urgency/calm’, ‘dominant/submissive stance’ does not seem to exist.
So one can ‘feel’ first, but not understand, and the one can understand but not report upon, and finally one can feel, understand, and report upon.
Interestingly, analyzing feelings can change them(association), and reporting upon feelings can change them(signaling) – sometimes falsely. (Which obvious in retrospect)
Curt Doolittle
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-25 04:31:00 UTC
There is as great a difference in informational content and therefore truth (decidability), between Operationalism and Empiricism, as there was between empiricism and reason, and between reason, and storytelling.
This is why, in the future, people will rely on Propertarianism and Testimonialism over ‘mere’ empiricism, the same way we empiricists rely on empiricism over rationalism.
And this in turn, is why Propertarianism and Testimonialism and Operationalism will produce as great a leap forward in the ‘average’ human mind, as scientific thinking using general rules has produced an advance over rational thinking using particularist recipes.
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-25 01:02:00 UTC
THE FRAUD OF TOLERANCE
—Should we be tolerant? Should we tolerate intolerance? If we don’t, does that make us intolerant?—
We can always justify truthful speech. Why and how can we justify tolerance of anything other than truthful speech? Why should we justify falsehood, libel, slander, and risk (yelling fire in a theater for example).
So, why did the founders of the constitution, attempting to transform anglo empirical law into a formal logic of social science, state that freedom of speech was permissible instead of that freedom of truthful speech was permissible, and that punishment for use of false speech was permissible? (Jefferson’s ambition was brilliant but incomplete.)
The problem we have faced through history, is that because our justificationary language was based upon the false application of internal axiomatic moral language, we confused moral and legal justification with theoretic and survivable truth. And only with contemporary science did we discover that we cannot justify theoretic argument no matter what we do – we can only perform due thorough due diligence against falsehood in theoretic systems, including all of ethics, economics, and politics.
We have just endured a century of pseudoscience, propaganda, and deceit, on a scale not seen since the use of writing and roads to spread the conflation of law and religion we call monotheism.
And it has cost us as much damage as that last deceit caused the roman empire, and western civilization, and the dark ages that followed, and all the painful reformations that we have born: anglo, french, german, and Jewish, Russian, Chinese, and now Muslim.
But why have we been so susceptible to the lies, deceits, pseudosciences, and falsehoods of the 19th and 20th centuries?
(media scale vs pulpit and book, and town crier and parchment scale)
And how can we perform due diligence and warranty against error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, and deceit?
WARRANTIES OF DUE DILIGENCE
Now, we can’t possibly cover this subject in detail as an interjection, but these are the six tests, the first three which are familiar to scientists, and the last possibly so.
1 – categorical consistency (identity)(non-conflation)
2 – logical consistency (internal consistency)(non-contradictory)
3 – empirical consistency (external correspondence)(repeatable)
4 – operational consistency (existential possibility)(possible)
5 – moral consistency (reciprocal voluntary transfers)(moral)
6 – scope consistency (full accounting, limits, and parsimony)
The first novel test is 4-Operational consistency, meaning that we write in the objective language of action, as do the physical scientists, so that each step we discuss is subjectively testable, and existentially possible, and does not conflate actor intent, observer interpretation, and subjective experience, but simply a record of the actions taken. (This technique can be found by researching e-prime.)
The second novel test objective morality under which we require that all transfers consist of productive, fully informed, voluntary exchange limited to externalities of the same criteria. This is definition of natural law: the law of non-imposition of costs that would cause resentment or retaliation which would disincentivize the process of cooperation, and limit the disproportionate returns of cooperation.
So now that we know how to demand the same warranty of truthfulness in speech that we do in advertising, marketing, production, distribution, and trade, why do we not demand implicitly warranty against harm, by the demand for due diligence in the qualification of political speech, just as we over the centuries have incrementally demanded due diligence and warranty of the fitness for service of goods, services, and all other products?
The only reason to do so is to continue to allow deceit. Or to fail to pay the cost of suppressing falsehood out of convenience.
Or worse, —“Why is it that people should be lied to and not taught Truth, or spoken to, but not spoken to truthfully, or speak, and not speak truthfully? To engage in human husbandry.”—David Mondrus
We can all tolerate uncomfortable truths. That the universe doesn’t care about us has been one discomfort after another. But why must we tolerate falsehoods, frauds, and deceits, pseudorationalism (obscurantism), and pseudoscience (deception) when we know how to demand due diligence against error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, overloading ( including pseudoscience), and deceit?
Why must we give voice to error bias, wishful thinking suggestion, obscurantism, and deceit? If so, why do products and services require regulation? Do we not live in an information economy now, where it is information that is our primary product and primary good of consumption?
THE BEAUTY OF IT ALL
Here is what I am certain of: that the same delta in human achievement that resulted from the greek development of reason, and the suppression of mysticism in the commons; and that same delta in human achievement that resulted from the English invention of empiricism, and the suppression of mysticism and rationalism in the commons, would be brought to mankind by the development of truthfulness as a suppression for error, propaganda, and deception in the commons.
And likewise I am quite certain that just as the mystics fought reason tooth and nail, and just as the religious and theological fought empiricism tooth and nail, and just as the spiritual fought darwin tooth and nail, and those who practice theology, rationalism, and pseudoscience, and justificationary deception will fight tooth and nail.
Because, each of these groups profits from their lies.
The next great leap in human civilization is not technology. it’s morality and law: truth telling. It will be as great a leap as science has been.
Now, imagine all the books written today, how many are false? Sure, it is true, that we need a different book to discuss the same idea, for every ten points of intelligence, from about 140 on down. But how many fundamental truths are there? (we have estimates in the range of a few hundred to less than two thousand). Why is it that people should be lied to and not taught truth, or spoken to, but not spoken to truthfully, or speak, and not speak truthfully?
Why do we have any more right to pollute the informational commons than we do the other commons of air, water, and land? Why can we cause informational harm out of ignorance, yet we are prohibited from economic and criminal harm out of ignorance or not?
What was the cost of literacy? What was the cost of creating rule of law? What was the cost of western high trust?
We must tolerate the truth, productive competition, the vagaries of the voluntary organization of reproduction we call the family, the vagaries of the voluntary organization of production distribution and trade we call the market economy, and the vagaries of competition for the production of commons that we call government. But there is no reason we must tolerate preventable harm by error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, and deception, any more than we have tolerated murder, violence, theft, fraud, conspiracy, conquest by conversion, conquest by immigration, and conquest by war.
So no. Tolerance is an excuse to conflate convenience (cost) with conviction, in exchange for false status signals, fraudulently obtained, by the pretense of charity versus the evasion of the tax necessary for the preservation of a high-trust society and its benefits.
The tolerant so to speak are just engaged in fraud and nothing more.
Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of the West: Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-24 14:27:00 UTC
IS BELIEF QUANTIFIABLE? YES BUT JUSTIFICATION ISN”T.
Belief is already quantifiable by the degree of risk you are willing to take to demonstrate it. it’s not justifiable but it’s measurable. In most cases, belief is indistinguishable from self-signaling, and other-signalling, and signal vs risk explains the difference between reported belief, and demonstrated belief.
In other words, any use of the word ‘belief’ epistemically is either suspect or outright false, unless (like many conveniences) it’s short for “as far as I know”, and not “I am justified in my claim”.
THE GRAMMAR OF HEDGING (DETACHMENT)
I think I understand / I believe I understand / but it’s nt something I’d risk with my current understanding.
I can understand it but I don’t know if it’s possible. / I believe I understand but don’t know if it’s possible / and we shouldn’t do it if it’s costly.
As far as I know, it’s possible. / I believe its possible / hard to know if it’s possible/ we can try it if it’s not costly.
As far as I know, it’s likely or probable / I believe it’s likely / we might be able to do it / we can try to do it if it’s not too costly.
As far as I know, it’s pretty common. / I believe it’s pretty common / we probably can do this / we probably should do this.
As far as I know it’s hard to imagine otherwise. / I believe it’s pretty certain./ We should do this / we must do this.
There is no possible justification for belief.
There is possible justification for moral action according to norms.
There is possible justification for legal action according to laws.
But to conflate justification(knowable norms, laws, and axioms), with Truth (unknowns constantly open to revision) is to conflate excuse making, with warranty, the same way we conflate probability and guessing in the ludic fallacy.
Our language arose from local, in-group use. In-group members use moral language, and we use legal language as if it’s moral language.
But we live now in a SCALE of human organization far beyond the local, and we have not quite adapted our language, concepts, and institutions to correspond to the SCALE of human organization we live in. Very little of what we discuss is between people with common interests, kinship, knowledge, understanding, experience that was not artificially constructed through media propaganda.
(ASIDE: Just as an illustration, when you’re talking to people and they hesitate or stutter, or rephrase, listen for how often they’re trying to take a declarative martial language (Germanic) and rephrase it probabilistically with hedges, the same way we took and hedged martial language with deferential language as economic equality spread through society and hierarchy disappeared. It will shock you to see that not only does pronunciation migrate but so concepts as they work through our language.)
So to speak truthfully requries we no longer use the CONSTRUCTIVIST DECEIT: that we speak morally (with ingroup preference) and instead speak eitehr in terms of justificationary axioms, morals, and laws, or we speak in critical (theoretical) epistemology of truths, and we leave behind the philosophical tradition of deception that circumvents costs when we discuss ingroup norms and policy, and include costs when we discuss external/outgroup policy, becasue we are now all members of outgroups thanks to the scale of our polities – especialy in empire america.
If it sounds like I just cast most of philosophical discourse into a category along with theological discourse as a great deception….. I did.
Hence why I struggle daily to unite philosophy, science, and law into a single discipline with a single language, without room to engage in fraud. 😉
Cheers.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-24 14:00:00 UTC