Curt Doolittle

Theme: Truth

  • The Absence of Consideration for Costs in Popper’s Critical Rationalism.

    [T]HE ABSENCE OF COST IN POPPER’S CRITICAL RATIONALISM AND TESTIMONIALISM’S COMPLETENESS.

    —Since we can never know for sure what is true and what is false, —

    1) **We can however perform due diligence on our hypotheses, and pay the cost of that due diligence, rather than fail to do so, and thereby export the cost of our falsification onto the commons.** Which is why I raise the question, since it is what I believe you’re advocating. 2) Newton’s theory is not so much false as it less precise than Einstein’s. If that were true then Mythic, Virtue, and Rule ethics would all be ‘false’ rather than the degree of precision possible given the human subject using them. Recipes work or do not work. The verbal description we give to the category of those recipes (the theory), constructed as a verbal statement of arbitrary precision, is less precise (more general) than the recipe (sequence of operations). And imprecision is useful to us so that we can freely associate opportunities for the use of the theory, and then test them. But it appears that we are very good at criticizing theories. The problem is not criticizing theories, but the instrumentation necessary, and cost of criticizing those theories. Popper did no research, he made only an a priori assumption. It certainly APPEARS that in choosing between alternatives the least-cost method leads to discovery if for no other reason than the universe operates by least cost itself. So the statement that we know nothing for certain is not an empirical, and not even a logical, but a moral one: that we cannot use theories of arbitrary precision to impose costs upon one another, under the appeal to the authority of truth or science. 3) But Popperians like many libertarians, seem to habitually seek to justify exporting of costs in order to satisfy their needs for novelty and order (Big5: Openness to experience, Moral Foundations: economic and personal liberty. Propertarianism: acquisition of novel experiences. ) And popper is visibly circumventing costs in hist arguments, as if we are not speaking of a physical and material world, but a verbal, legal, or platonic one. Just as progressives seek to export their experiments ‘for the common good’ onto others. Just as conservatives wish to export their concern for risk-abatement onto others. Libertarians seek to export their admittedly lower cost of self stimulation onto others without taking care that they have performed due diligence against falsehood – if not also immorality (harm). When (a) the empirical evidence suggests that we do kill off false theories very quickly, (b) that we are largely engaged in the process of refining theories, not falsifying them, (d) that the number of theories that are ‘challenging’ is fairly small, but the number of falsehoods extant are very large (c) that least-cost is indeed a method of aggregate decidability (critical preference) (d) that it is far more expensive to construct a falsification of a welcome error or deception than it is to produce a welcome error or deception. 4) Popper/Darwin’s innovation was the systemic use of ‘survival’ over historical ‘justification for being’, meaning that he inverted the search for truth from accumulating justifications for hypotheses: as Rodin builds his sculpture from clay; into accumulating criticisms to see if the theory survives: as Michelangelo removes the rock to expose the potential sculpture underneath. So why would we seek to advance knowledge rather than eliminate lies and falsehoods? Why would we not worry more about preventing false and deceitful intellectual products more so than truthful ones? Would that not direct capital (costs) to truthful rather than untruthful results? So you see – this problem of costs, so fundamental to the natural laws of human behavior, and the physical laws of the extant universe is absent from popperian thought. And I am always struck with “why?” Popper was a cosmopolitan just as I am an anglo empiricist, and Kant is a german rationalist. Popper’s tradition was religion, religious law, avoidance of paying into the commons, willing, if not advocacy of, privatization of the commons, and an avoidance of externalized costs so universal to western thought that we are unaware of alternative methods of thinking. None of us escape our framings. But popper’s vision was incomplete. He ‘hooked onto’ falsification (survival) as a life raft, but he didn’t grasp that each dimension of existence requires us to perform due diligence (which again, is a cost-based framing, whereas falsification is a legal or religious based framing). Warranties of Due Diligence: – categorical consistency (non-conflation) – Internal consistency (logical) – external correspondence (empirical consistency) – existential consistency (operational definitions) – full accounting ( against selection bias ) – parsimony and limits ( precision ) – morality – ( natural law of cooperation) consisting of productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, limited to externalities of the same criteria.) Because having performed these due diligences, it is extremely difficult to engage in error, bias, wishful thinking, loading-framing-overloading-suggestion, and deceit. In fact, it would be almost impossible. Simply stating most arguments analytically in operational language causes self refutation. Hence the only reasons to escape these due diligences are; 1 – because one is merely ignorant that such a warranty of due diligence can be performed, or how to perform it. 2 – to escape paying costs of due diligence, like the distributor of faulty products. 3 – to deceive or profit from, or achieve conquest by, the distribution of wishful thinking and deceit. 4 – because we do not limit the market for distribution of intellectual works to those which are warrantied of due diligence, by treating the informational commons like we do the air, land, and sea: as commons that must be protected from harm; and under universal standing allowing us to pursue restitution for such harm against those who fail to perform due diligence on their intellectual products. This may be a bit to digest, but you can see between the scope of your argument and the scope of mine the demonstration of the technique. Cheers Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • TRUE VS MORAL Debating whether something is true or not, is very different from

    TRUE VS MORAL

    Debating whether something is true or not, is very different from debating whether it is moral or not. We too often allow our culture’s framing of discourse as truth, to be used as a vehicle for advocating immorality.

    This is why the ‘others’ cannot debate me. I will not fall into the question of whether something is true or not. We can rarely know if answers to great questions are true or not.

    We can however know whether the answers to great questions are moral or not.

    They are immoral. We are not.

    MORAL AND ETHICAL:

    Productive

    Fully informed

    Warrantied

    Voluntary Transfer

    Limited to externality of the same.

    TRUTHFUL TESTIMONY

    Warranties of Due Diligence:

    – categorical consistency (non-conflation)

    – Internal consistency (logical)

    – external correspondence (empirical consistency)

    – existential consistency (operational definitions)

    – full accounting ( against selection bias )

    – parsimony and limits ( precision )

    – morality – ( natural law of cooperation) consisting of productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, limited to externalities of the same criteria.)

    Because having performed these due diligences, it is extremely difficult to engage in error, bias, wishful thinking, loading-framing-overloading-suggestion, and deceit.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-02-04 13:36:00 UTC

  • STEVE ‘HALFWITZ’ HOROWITZ , author of his ‘FOLKTALE’ LIBERTINISM PULLS THE RACE

    STEVE ‘HALFWITZ’ HOROWITZ , author of his ‘FOLKTALE’ LIBERTINISM PULLS THE RACE CARD ON ME FOR TRUTHFUL TESTIMONY.

    Apparently Steve ‘Halfwitz’ Horowitz has called me an “anti-semitic, racist piece of sh@t’” Not exactly a criticism.

    Huh. I thought I was a social scientist trying to find a way of uniting Jewish, Christian, Anglo, German, Slavic, Russian and Sinic peoples by the use of truthful amoral language of politics, so that we could stop fighting with one another – by merely exposing the truth content of their strategies.

    Yeah, I have to place due criticism on Jewish intellectuals because they’re the dominant ideological force postwar – something that they happily acknowledge.

    I don’t even mention the french because they’re so ridiculous that they don’t warrant mention. Ignoring peoples works is the most sincere form of insult.

    I also burned the entirety corpus of German (continental) philosophy on a pyre of pseudo-rationalism, and the German enlightenment experiment merely a recast of protestant christianity – albeit one with

    And I burned the entire Anglo Experiment as a catastrophe of wishful thinking, and the cause of the world wars, and their collapsed empire as the cause of current world disorder.

    And I burned the entire American Experiment as a excuse for selling off and profiting from a conquered continent.

    And I burned all of Russian history right up to the present as a fabrication, for a people who regrettably cannot trust one another one iota.

    And I don’t truck with Racism at all. Its one of my main differentiators – and one of the reasons the hard right criticizes me.

    My primary concern is CLASSISM: the high cost of the underclass as the cause of conflict.

    And yeah, their our Jews. Sorry we want them. We want all the best talent in the world. We just don’t want people to bring their ancient superstitions, even if they’re pseudoscientific superstitions, in to our Truth, Testimony, Natural Law, Physical Law, and High Trust Society.

    IF ITS TRUE IT’S TRUE. I am very good at what I do.

    THE TRUTH IS ENOUGH. IF YOU DON’T LIKE IT THEN WHY????????

    Source date (UTC): 2016-02-04 13:10:00 UTC

  • WHY HAVE THE JEWS HAD SUCH A HARD TIME (A) ADAPTING TO MODERNITY, and (B) GRASPI

    WHY HAVE THE JEWS HAD SUCH A HARD TIME (A) ADAPTING TO MODERNITY, and (B) GRASPING TRUTH, and (C) HOLDING TERRITORY? AND WHY HAVE WESTERNERS FAILED TO RESIST THE WORKS OF JEWISH INTELLECTUALS?

    —“The problem [facing jewish culture] is not the [ancient] past it is the consequence of the diaspora– more detail plz?”—

    A nomadic people, a low trust people, in the most competitive place on earth (the crescent), repeatedly conquered, lacking the resources to defend themselves against the landed aristocracies (mesopotamia, the nile, the aegean) develop a separatist group evolutionary strategy, a narrative religion to support it, a law to advance it, and philosophical arguments to defend it from criticism.

    These people are unable (as are all the semitic post-pastoral peoples) to construct material commons. All cultures retain the metaphysics of their military origins – in the case of middle easterners, desert and steppe peoples, this is ‘raid and retreat’. The geography encourages it. And we have no way of knowing whether this is now genetic or not – it appears to have had genetic consequences for all groups. The combination of genetic, mythical, traditional, normative, and group evolutionary strategy are sufficient but over generations we all seem to evolve in favor of our strategies.

    They then develop a false history in order to argue for the retention of property after the babylonians depart. This history is very useful at separatism through dual ethics, and assists in the formation of a body of cultural and tribal law – especially in an era where ostracization in a competitive land means near certain slavery or death.

    The consequence is that this same law is formulated for successful survival within a host population by localizing all gains, rather than control of territory which socializes gains into the commons – particularly the very high cost of defense, and the norms that require us to defend the commons. And therein lies the problem.

    They then are conquered repeatedly but finally by the Romans and Arabs, who forced them out of the territory. They are forced out of the territory for failing to contribute to the commons. This is the story of judaism. Failure to construct material commons must without exception end in parasitism upon the commons of others.

    Economics explains what emotionally loaded arguments do not. People do not ‘feel’ for arbitrary reasons. They feel for material reasons.

    The diaspora creates isolated communities of males that largely breed with local females, capturing local genes (a good thing), and then transferring to inbreeding and insularity – repeating the privatization of local commons and the non-contribution to commons – and specialization in many parasitic activities especially against the lower classes.

    Worse, the need for literacy makes the jews good bureaucratic servants of whatever malicious state will provide them with protection, and the people retaliate against the jews as agents of the state.

    This ethic persists over time. But because of the constant purging of the underclasses from the tribe, the constraint on reproduction of undesirable members, and the upward redistribution of reproduction through the ‘teachers’. Because of this the tribe cannot construct an army sufficient to hold land.

    So the jews have been even more successful than the europeans at eugenic reproduction. But despite eugenic reproduction, jews have been less successful anywhere and everywhere they go because they are unwilling or unable, or genetically, culturally, or traditionally cannot intuit, the ‘good’ of production of commons.

    Without having a territory, institutions, and fixed capital, the jewish people have not learned to intuit as ‘good’, and embody in their myths, traditions, institutional, and law, the high cost of investment in physical and defensive commons, nor the importance of militarizing the underclasses to defend that territory.

    So this is why Israel is important, and the cleft in Jewish culture between those who integrate and abandon it, those who are hosted by westerners advocate for, but do not fight for their territory, those who live there and fight for it. This factionalization is evidence of the failure of the jewish people to learn the lessons of their history. And a failure of jewish thought leaders to change the narrative from one of victimization to one of self-failure that must be corrected.

    The rise and fall of the kingdom of Israel is predictable given their mythology and tradition. The rise and fall of modern Israel is playing out now. I have very little faith in the ability of jewish intellectuals to learn the lesson of history since the self worth obtained from the mythos cannot tolerate critical reflection: “people don’t want us around for a good reason.”

    Yet there has been great value in eugenic reproduction, literacy, and the necessity of economic success and survival through specialization in non-physical capital at the expense of not possessing land or the the military capacity to hold it.

    It is common in jewish literature to misunderstand the western (or anyone’s) use of the underclasses as ‘army in waiting’. It is not uncommon in the west for the underclasses to be aware that they are an army in waiting and that this is precisely why we must invest in them and treat them with respect.

    So the past reformation of judaism was not sufficient. Prior to the arrival of eastern european jews westerners had integrated german jews to the point where the difference between Scottish Presbyterians and american jews was a function of “which club we belonged to.”

    A PEOPLE MUST SURVIVE

    It is necessary for a people to persist. Separatism (non-integration) is a rational group evolutionary strategy.

    BUT WHY SPECIALIZATION IN, EXCELLENCE IN, NON-TRUTH?

    But why did the jewish people create pseudosciences? Why is ‘truth’ and ‘science’ a harder concept to grasp? Thats a very interesting question.

    This ‘legalism’ or ‘verbal reality’ created by jewish people over Millenia is the reason for the rapid production of pseudosciences during the 1800’s and early 1900’s. And the use of propaganda and pseudo-rationalism during the 20th. Just as the poor and women were able to move and join movements in the roman era, the industrial revolution, the new continent, and the migration of people and classes, culminating in the world wars, made women and poor susceptible targets for pleasing pseudosciences spread by propaganda.

    Do I think these men knew they were ‘speaking untruths’?

    —Boaz (anthropology), Marx (economics and sociology), Freud (psychology), and Cantor(mathematical platonism), Mises (economics and philosophy) the 20th century saw the subsequent wave of philosophical liars, Michel Foucault, the anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss, the psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan, the developmental psychologist Jean Piaget, the linguists Roman Jakobson and Noam Chomsky, the literary critic Roland Barthes

    …. and the Marxist theorists Louis Althusser and Nicos Poulantzas, Max Horkheimer, Theodor W. Adorno, Herbert Marcuse, Friedrich Pollock, Erich Fromm, Otto Kirchheimer, Leo Löwenthal,, Franz Leopold Neumann, Henryk Grossman, Siegfried Kracauer, Alfred Sohn-Rethel, Walter Benjamin, Jürgen Habermas, Claus Offe, Axel, Honneth, Oskar Negt, Alfred Schmidt, Albrecht Wellmer

    …. and the postmodernists Martin Heidegger, Jean-François Lyotard, Richard Rorty, Jean Baudrillard, Fredric Jameson, Douglas Kellner…

    Although we must take notice that the french, german, american, and British postmodernists are making use of the german method of pseudo-moral, pseudo-rationalism: ADVICE – not the pseudoscientific: LAW.

    … and Ayn Rand, and Murray Rothbard as well. The fact that Hoppe’s work on incentives is solid has no bearing on his nonsense-arguments advancing Misesian and Rothbardian pseudoscience (which I’ve written extensively about elsewhere).

    Did Marx know he would be responsible for 100M deaths? Or that his work was wishful thinking and pseudoscience? Well, he did by the time he died, which is why he stopped working on it. He had read the Austrians. He knew he was wrong. But he would stave without the support of his benefactor, so he could not recant.

    Do I think Mises and Rothbard knew they were damaging the case for liberty, as much as adorno’s crew were damaging western law and testimony, as much as the jewish pseudoscientists were damaging western truth and science, as much as jewish media was destroying a thousand years of gradual “aristocratic- ization” of european commoners into lower time preference and higher production of commons? No, It’s that they realized very late in life that they were wrong. And it was hard for them to accept.

    Do I think that the jewish communist and postmodern attack on western art was intentional? Well we have record of those conversations, so yes.

    Do I think that Adorno and crew knew that they were lying? Well, in his own words he said that they just did what was sensible to them: they made it all up.

    THEY DIDN’T KNOW “TRUTH”

    I think instead of lying, they did not know the difference between the true, the moral and beautiful (natural law), and the pursuit of power and competitive advantage by selling wishful thinking to a feminized population without experience and traditions of self control.

    ***Why did these people not know that they were speaking falsehoods? This is the interesting question. It is doubtful that they did. So why did they think in falsehoods? Why did they attack commons? Why did they ‘make it up?’. Why did they attack beauty?***

    They had spent almost two Millenia creating an internal language of gossip, and a holy book of dual ethics, for the purpose of maintaining group cohesion as diasporic wanderers without land.

    With eugenics, separatism, literacy, they created a very talented separatist minority that specialized in pragmatism, through verbal persuasion, gossip, and ridicule. They persisted as a separate group, and did not die out, for this reason.

    And to no small degree, their ability to transition from martial management of groups to monetary and then credit management of groups was precisely because of their history without concern for commons.

    WHAT IS WRONG WITH WESTERN MAN?

    We can criticize other groups for their group evolutionary strategies. But this is not logical. The question is why westerners failed to resist untruths. Why were westerners defeated by untruths? Why did we let them defeat us? What is it about western man that he did not defeat these arguments on one hand, and why did it culminate in the nazi program to cleanse Europe of the communists and their advocates instead? Why were we intellectually unable to defeat untruth, and why did we resort to violence?

    What was wrong with western man in the Ancient era? What was wrong with western man in the industrial era? What was wrong with western man in the postwar era? What is wrong with western man today that we do not close our borders and defend ourselves from fallacy and lie?

    WE FAILED TO ARTICULATE OUR GROUP STRATEGY: COMMONS

    We have no book. That’s why. It was too hard to create a bible of Truth: Testimony, Natural Law and Physical law – and we have failed to do it, and therefore failed to defend ourselves against lies, despite our preference for truth as a means of constructing commons.

    We can categorize arguments by many different axis, but the one that I rely upon is group evolutionary strategy: what is the purpose of this set of philosophies? What group evolutionary strategy is advanced by this attempt? If the choice between truth, wishful thinking, and outright lying occurs, why does a group choose one or the other?

    All groups seek to advance their group evolutionary strategies as universal goods. The question is whether they are in fact universal goods: “Natural Law”.

    What I criticize is our failure to understand that the west’s competitive advantage was the production of commons: the commons of truth telling, of jury, of common law, universal standing, natural law, of civic society, of militial defense, and of sovereignty.

    And that rothbardian LIBERTINISM is precisely libertinism and not libertarianism. It is an attempt to justify escaping payment for the commons necessary for the production of a condition of liberty by the suppression of all disincentive NOT to cooperate: the incremental suppression of murder, violence, theft, fraud, fraud by suggestion, fraud by omission, fraud by externality, fraud by free riding, privatization by non-productive exchange, privatization of the commons, socialization of losses, conspiracy, conversion, immigration, invasion, colonization, conquest and extermination.

    In my work I all but eliminate genetics, and focus on institutions. I think others do the opposite (MacDonald). It does me no good to focus on genetics since that rquires killing lots of people. Whereas focusing on institutions will eventually produce the same ends regardless of current genetic composition.

    My goal of course is to destroy ALL the fallacies: Anglo Aristocracy of Everyone, French Peasant Equality, German Rationalism (moral pseudoscience), and Jewish Pseudocience, pseudorationalism, mysticism, and in general, the principles of dual ethics, and the morality of ‘cheating’ embodied in the statement ‘it takes two to make a deal’, when no, a deal is constrained by externalities produced.

    So if I can create that ‘book’ and the test of truth, and I can disable all possibility of error, bias, wishful thinking, loading-framing-overloading-suggestion, outright deceit, and propagandism, by merely providing a set of tests for the common law, such that publication in the commons requires the same warranty as production of goods and services in the commons, then the only group evolutionary strategy left to man – regardless of genetic or cultural background – is truth and natural law.

    And we need not worry about the pandora effect – the catastrophe of adding women to a democratic polity, nor the failure of groups to know when they are ‘lying’ by wishful thinking.

    GOSSIP IS NO LONGER NECESSARY – POLITICS IS A NATURAL LAW FOR THE GOOD AND A CURSE FOR THOSE WHO ARE NOT.

    But perhaps more importantly, there is no moralism that needs utterance. There is no political or religious movement that needs utterance. There is only truth, productivity, and consumption and commons that results from them. All else must be theft.

    ***We do not need to know what is ‘best’ – we need only to know what others will do voluntarily, and to assist them in doing it voluntarily. And we will discover what is best. ***

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-02-04 08:45:00 UTC

  • THE ABSENCE OF COST IN POPPER’S CRITICAL RATIONALISM AND TESTIMONIALISM’S COMPLE

    THE ABSENCE OF COST IN POPPER’S CRITICAL RATIONALISM AND TESTIMONIALISM’S COMPLETENESS.

    —Since we can never know for sure what is true and what is false, —

    1) **We can however perform due diligence on our hypotheses, and pay the cost of that due diligence, rather than fail to do so, and thereby export the cost of our falsification onto the commons.**

    Which is why I raise the question, since it is what I believe you’re advocating.

    2) Newton’s theory is not so much false as it less precise than Einstein’s. If that were true then Mythic, Virtue, and Rule ethics would all be ‘false’ rather than the degree of precision possible given the human subject using them.

    Recipes work or do not work. The verbal description we give to the category of those recipes (the theory), constructed as a verbal statement of arbitrary precision, is less precise (more general) than the recipe (sequence of operations).

    And imprecision is useful to us so that we can freely associate opportunities for the use of the theory, and then test them.

    But it appears that we are very good at criticizing theories. The problem is not criticizing theories, but the instrumentation necessary, and cost of criticizing those theories.

    Popper did no research, he made only an a priori assumption. It certainly APPEARS that in choosing between alternatives the least-cost method leads to discovery if for no other reason than the universe operates by least cost itself.

    So the statement that we know nothing for certain is not an empirical, and not even a logical, but a moral one: that we cannot use theories of arbitrary precision to impose costs upon one another, under the appeal to the authority of truth or science.

    3) But Popperians like many libertarians, seem to habitually seek to justify exporting of costs in order to satisfy their needs for novelty and order (Big5: Openness to experience, Moral Foundations: economic and personal liberty. Propertarianism: acquisition of novel experiences. )

    And popper is visibly circumventing costs in hist arguments, as if we are not speaking of a physical and material world, but a verbal, legal, or platonic one.

    Just as progressives seek to export their experiments ‘for the common good’ onto others. Just as conservatives wish to export their concern for risk-abatement onto others. Libertarians seek to export their admittedly lower cost of self stimulation onto others without taking care that they have performed due diligence against falsehood – if not also immorality (harm).

    When (a) the empirical evidence suggests that we do kill off false theories very quickly, (b) that we are largely engaged in the process of refining theories, not falsifying them, (d) that the number of theories that are ‘challenging’ is fairly small, but the number of falsehoods extant are very large (c) that least-cost is indeed a method of aggregate decidability (critical preference) (d) that it is far more expensive to construct a falsification of a welcome error or deception than it is to produce a welcome error or deception.

    4) Popper/Darwin’s innovation was the systemic use of ‘survival’ over historical ‘justification for being’, meaning that he inverted the search for truth from accumulating justifications for hypotheses: as Rodin builds his sculpture from clay; into accumulating criticisms to see if the theory survives: as Michelangelo removes the rock to expose the potential sculpture underneath.

    So why would we seek to advance knowledge rather than eliminate lies and falsehoods? Why would we not worry more about preventing false and deceitful intellectual products more so than truthful ones?

    Would that not direct capital (costs) to truthful rather than untruthful results?

    So you see – this problem of costs, so fundamental to the natural laws of human behavior, and the physical laws of the extant universe is absent from popperian thought.

    And I am always struck with “why?”

    Popper was a cosmopolitan just as I am an anglo empiricist, and Kant is a german rationalist. Popper’s tradition was religion, religious law, avoidance of paying into the commons, willing, if not advocacy of, privatization of the commons, and an avoidance of externalized costs so universal to western thought that we are unaware of alternative methods of thinking.

    None of us escape our framings.

    But popper’s vision was incomplete. He ‘hooked onto’ falsification (survival) as a life raft, but he didn’t grasp that each dimension of existence requires us to perform due diligence (which again, is a cost-based framing, whereas falsification is a legal or religious based framing).

    Warranties of Due Diligence:

    – categorical consistency (non-conflation)

    – Internal consistency (logical)

    – external correspondence (empirical consistency)

    – existential consistency (operational definitions)

    – full accounting ( against selection bias )

    – parsimony and limits ( precision )

    – morality – ( natural law of cooperation) consisting of productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, limited to externalities of the same criteria.)

    Because having performed these due diligences, it is extremely difficult to engage in error, bias, wishful thinking, loading-framing-overloading-suggestion, and deceit.

    In fact, it would be almost impossible. Simply stating most arguments analytically in operational language causes self refutation.

    Hence the only reasons to escape these due diligences are;

    1 – because one is merely ignorant that such a warranty of due diligence can be performed, or how to perform it.

    2 – to escape paying costs of due diligence, like the distributor of faulty products.

    3 – to deceive or profit from, or achieve conquest by, the distribution of wishful thinking and deceit.

    4 – because we do not limit the market for distribution of intellectual works to those which are warrantied of due diligence, by treating the informational commons like we do the air, land, and sea: as commons that must be protected from harm; and under universal standing allowing us to pursue restitution for such harm against those who fail to perform due diligence on their intellectual products.

    This may be a bit to digest, but you can see between the scope of your argument and the scope of mine the demonstration of the technique.

    Cheers

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-02-04 05:02:00 UTC

  • Truth (Sparta and Rome), Athens (Cunning), Jerusalem (Lying)

    Truth (Sparta and Rome), Athens (Cunning), Jerusalem (Lying)

    Source date (UTC): 2016-02-04 03:30:00 UTC

  • It might be interesting to give a seminar or series of talks teaching Testimonia

    It might be interesting to give a seminar or series of talks teaching Testimonialiism (“completed” critical rationalism), versus Suggestion: The Three Eras of the Great Lies: Monotheism, Pseudoscience, and Propaganda.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-02-04 03:25:00 UTC

  • How would I teach a philosophy course? Hmm… Well, you know, I would have to te

    How would I teach a philosophy course? Hmm… Well, you know, I would have to teach it as truth first, and then the catalog of errors and deceptions that constitute most of intellectual history.

    I can’t imagine that’s attractive to a philosophy department.

    lol

    Source date (UTC): 2016-02-03 17:58:00 UTC

  • WHY NOT STUDY THE CONTINENTALS, MYSTICS, PHILOSOPHERS OF LANGUAGE? Spending time

    WHY NOT STUDY THE CONTINENTALS, MYSTICS, PHILOSOPHERS OF LANGUAGE?

    Spending time analyzing lies is not useful. In fact, its harmful. And that’s the intent of the authors.

    —“If you dance with the devil, the devil doesn’t change, the devil changes you.”—

    Or less eloquently,

    —“If you spend a lot of time with dung, you begin to smell of it.”—

    Or put more accurately:

    We are all aware that the average idiot seems to feel qualified to engage in discourse on ethics, morality, politics, economics, psychology, and sociology, despite his pervasive ignorance.

    By constructing elaborate nonsense-riddles the producers of systems of lies accomplish indoctrination through amusement.

    In other words, the study of the language of deceit makes one a willing host for it, and an accidental accomplice to it.

    If philosophy and science are compatible then the subject at hand is possibly worth consideration.

    If they are not compatible, then the evidence is that the subject at hand is one of deception, not education.

    Curt Doolittle,

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-02-03 17:55:00 UTC

  • WHY DISCUSS LIES. THEY’RE JUST LIES. THREE WAVES OF LIES. (read it and weep) (a

    WHY DISCUSS LIES. THEY’RE JUST LIES. THREE WAVES OF LIES.

    (read it and weep) (a graduate education in philosophy in one lesson)

    Q&A: —“Curt Doolittle, is christian mysticism a functional or structural approach to things?”—

    Well, now that’s an interesting question.

    1) “Functional”, “Structural” and “Approach to Things” are problematic terms. If we clarify the terms – which is the purpose of analytic philosophy – then I am pretty sure that (as usual) the question will all but answer itself.

    2) The Grammar of Description: The subset of internal consistency: observer (narrator) consistency.

    There are at least three points of view that we can use do describe observations: (a) the experience of being subjected to stimuli, (b) the experience of acting to cause change in state, (c) the observer of the actor and/or the experiencer, (d) the description of the constituent parts as a series of operations.

    In other words, all description of observation that we can use for reconstruction of observation (communication) of relies upon a grammar, and that grammar includes the point of view.

    In general the most problematic use of this grammar originates in the ‘cost’ of consistency in construction of our descriptions. The verb to-be functions as an obscurant technique with which to conflate multiple points of view, (use bad grammar of description) thereby either alleviating the burden of logical consistency from the speaker, OR worse, through obscurantism, allowing the speaker to state a falsehood undetected by the audience.

    3) “Functional” methodology is more correctly stated as an attempt at descriptive consistency using the experiential observer’s point of view, and the behavior (incentives?) that these experiences produce.

    Since humans act according to their experiences, this is somewhat difficult to argue with.

    To convey mere ‘meaning’ any method can be used to serve the speaker’s interests.

    Certainly the experiential point of view requires the least knowledge, and relies upon mere introspection. But experiential description is also the most susceptible to error, bias, wishful thinking, deception, because it is the easiest means of suggestion. It is the easiest means of suggestion because it is the most subject to loading, framing, overloading, and it invokes our desire to empathize with the speaker, leading to easy abuse of our altruism. (Which is why people use it).

    Hence why the discipline of science speaks operationally: to best ostracize error, bias, wishful thinking, deceit, suggestion, and abuse of altruism.

    And hence why, in my work, I use amoral operational language to prevent error caused by experiential, intentional, and observational methods of description.

    To convey “truth”, meaning that we have done due diligence to launder error, bias, wishful thinking, deceit, loading, framing, and suggestion would require that we test that all four descriptive models of a process are consistent with one another, such that we convey no error, bias, wishful thinking, or deceit in our description.

    4) Structuralism, or more honestly stated “social constructivism”, suggests that people throw symbols around at one another, and that their reality is socially constructed.

    Now this may be true at some popular level, but it was the western tradition to teach grammar, rhetoric, logic, and philosophy for a very long time. And we can see from the disciplined use of grammar, rhetoric, logic, performative truth, the discipline of testimony, natural law, and physical law, that it is quite possible to learn to speak with the same discipline as any of the logics. We just have industrialized education mass consumption and no longer teach these skills.

    The structuralist movement was created by some of the greatest ‘liars’ of the past century, in what I would argue represents an attempt to impose false skepticism on the use of language, in an effort to circumvent the constraint that consistent grammar, rhetoric, logic, performative truth, the discipline of testimony, natural law, and physical law

    So just as the 19th century saw the first wave of pseudoscientific liars: Boaz (anthropology), Marx (economics and sociology), Freud (psychology), and Cantor(mathematical platonism), Mises (economics and philosophy) the 20th century saw the subsequent wave of philosophical liars, Michel Foucault, the anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss (1908 – ), the psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan (1901 – 1981), the developmental psychologist Jean Piaget (1896 – 1980), the linguists Roman Jakobson (1896 – 1982) and Noam Chomsky (1928 – ), the literary critic Roland Barthes (1915 – 1980) and the Marxist theorists Louis Althusser (1918 – 1990) and Nicos Poulantzas (1936 – 1979).

    5) Christian mysticism makes use of analogy to invoke experience (the extension of kinship love through appeals to altruism and the pack response in exchange for self-generated status signals).

    It makes use of any and all methods to suit its purpose. Christian mysticism is at best an allegorical literary and rhetorical art for constructing myths parables and outright lies, for the purpose of creating experiences, that produce behaviors.

    Some of these behaviors are objectively beneficial (the extension of kinship love). And some of them are not (too many to list). But what the data suggests is that this method works, particularly on the young, the vulnerable, the hopeful, and those with lower intelligence, and even those with average intelligence and above average moral instincts (purity, sanctity, hierarchy).

    (But the church also has a long tradition of natural law as well.)

    6) Humans can cooperate, communicate, and understand ethical moral and political statements by a spectrum of tools. And with some confidence we can say that Ethics can be taught using a spectrum of methods, from the most primitive and requiring the LEAST knowledge, to the most sophisticated and requiring the MOST knowledge:

    a) Myth and Mysticism

    b) Virtue ethics and imitation.

    c) Rule ethics and adherence to law

    d) Outcome ethics and the practice of science.

    We can separate the promise of a narrative, from the truth content of it, from the behavior produced by it (ie: Islam’s nonsensical ‘religion of peace’ claims which fail all three tests.).

    I would say that the truth content of christian mysticism is higher than the truth content of Structuralism. I would say that the outcome of christian mysticism is objectively more beneficial than the outcome of structuralism. I would say that the intention of structuralists was fraud and deception (parasitism). I would say that christian mysticism is not as bad as structuralism or social constructivism – which are themselves an argumentative innovation on mysticism (deceit). I would say that as long as we have a method of laundering error, bias, wishful thinking, and deceit from any and all arguments, and that we can teach this method by grammar, rhetoric, logic, performative truth, testimonial skill, natural law and physical law, that we can counter every one of these falsehoods.

    CLOSING

    Christian mysticism consists of allegorical conveyance of meaning, using a mixture of truth and falsehood to try to produce high trust on one end, and dependency on the other.

    functionalism consists of an internally consistent and grammatically consistent method of argument, but it is insufficient in the scope of due diligence it includes to ensure it is not used as a vehicle for error,bias, wishful thinking, and deceit.

    Structuralism is a literary and narrative attempt to circumvent a demand for truth, testimony, natural law and physical law.

    Christianity (monotheism) was the first great lie to successfully infect the west.

    19th century pseudoscience as the second great lie to successfully infect the west.

    20th century verbal ‘new mysticism of language’ was the third great lie to successfully infect the west.

    None of these subjects merit discussion since christian supernatural mysticism, cosmopolitan pseudoscience, and cosmopolitan verbal mysticism, are nothing but the same technique applied in three different waves, in order to defeat the west’s central competitive strategy:

    The creation of competitive commons through the use of truth, testimony, natural law and physical law.

    In other words: correspondence.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-02-03 17:44:00 UTC