Curt Doolittle

Theme: Truth

  • EATING THE WEAK. NO MERCY. —“Saying things like “Better to learn from my work

    EATING THE WEAK. NO MERCY.

    —“Saying things like “Better to learn from my work and ask questions than think ones self able to participate in philosophical discourse of this magnitude.” is never to anyone’s benefit, for the record. It just makes you sound like infantile and butthurt. Therefore I am not sorry to inform you that oneself*”— anonymous female dimwit.

    Again. Shaming. Attempt at using guilt to demand equality when there is none.

    This is the feminine reproductive strategy talking, not reason, science, or truth.

    Either one can construct an argument that survives criticism or one cannot.

    Shaming is what little girls do. Adult men simply seek truth.

    I speak as I do to invite challenges.

    You speak as you do to avoid them.

    Therefore which of us is testing our theories against all comers?

    Not you. You haven’t levied one.

    See?

    The postmodern, feminist, pseudoscientific, era of deception is done.

    Welcome to the revolution.

    =====

    I am a prosecutor of falsehood and deception in ethical, moral, political, and economic theory.

    The greatest deceit is pseudoscience and misapplied rationalism.

    The preferred tactic is shaming and rallying and walking away from debate.

    The only way to overturn the century of pseudoscience and deceit distributed by rallying and shaming is truth.

    To prosecute the deceptive I’m all walks of life.

    To use truth to defeat and shame the deceitful.

    If the truth is unpleasant and you walk away we win.

    We silence the liars.

    And that is how truth prevails.

    Cheers.

    ( every man a warrior, every man a sheriff, every man a judge, every man a sovereign.)

    BTW: Arrogance is a tactic I use to draw criticism on the one hand and defeat shaming on the other.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-16 10:58:00 UTC

  • It is contradictory to write about truth and not use your own name. It is very c

    It is contradictory to write about truth and not use your own name.

    It is very costly to write about truth.

    Advancements in truth that criticise the status quo invoke persecution.

    Socrates.

    Aristotle.

    Hypatia.

    Galileo.

    Locke.

    And many more.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-16 07:55:00 UTC

  • “Rational action is the reason for the NAP, not the other way around.”— Is it?

    –“Rational action is the reason for the NAP, not the other way around.”—

    Is it?

    Or is it the result of deception?

    Or is it the result of excuse making (rationalization)?

    Or is it the result of wishful thinking?

    Or is it the result of cognitive bias?

    Or is it the result of ignorance?

    Or is it the result of stupidity?

    Because it cannot be the result of informed and rational thinking since an observer of others, and an observer of the self, says that we and others retaliate for all impositions upon that which we have born costs to construct.

    And that the more complex our property, norms, and institutions, the less physical are our means of production, and more behavioral. And so the decreasingly physical are our means of accumulating property.

    This is why ratio-empirical ethics rather than rational ethics are necessary: to prevent deception, excuse making, wishful thinking, cognitive bias, ignorance, and stupidity.

    Because when we deceive, justify, bias, preserve ignorance, and are outright stupid, we cannot trust our reason to produce correspondent theories of action.

    It is non-rational to ask others not to retaliate against your imposition of costs upon them regardless of whether physical, normative, or institutional. Therefore the NAP cannot be the result of rational thought. It can only be the result of deception, excuse making, wishful thinking, bias, ignorance, or stupidity.

    Now we can argue that a stupid person acts rationally, but we cannot argue that we construct a general rule of human action according to the limits of the stupid people’s minds. That is illogical, since a general rule for man is logically incompatible when suitable only for a subset of man.

    Ergo The NAP(IVP) is not rational, or the result of rational action, unless one conflates ‘reasoning’ with ‘reasonable’ with ‘rational’. One may say that it is reasonable for a person of limited intelligence and rather broad ignorance to reasonably conclude the NAP is sufficient but we cannot say his actions are rational, since that would require the he investigate the limits of his reason and test them against the evidence in reality.

    WORDS MATTER. Because fuzzy language provides the incompetent mind with venues for relying upon deception, excuse making, wishful thinking, cognitive bias, ignorance, and stupidity.

    Hence why I am adamant about your misuse of language to justify your prior, rather than learning terminology that limits or eliminates your ability to justify your prior.

    THEREFORE

    0) The NA/Demonstrated-Property is sufficient for the determination of rational action because it eliminates demand for retaliation, and maximizes demand for cooperation.

    1) The NAP(IVP) is insufficient for the determination of rational action because it does not sufficiently limit demand for retaliation, and decreases the demand for cooperation (increasing transaction costs – and exporting them to the rest of the community.)

    2) The act of reasoning, and a conclusion of reasonableness are not equal to a conclusion that we call rational, nor to one that is ratio-scientific, nor to one that is warrantable as ratio-scientific-and-testimonial. It can only be the result of deceit, excuse making, wishful thinking, bias, ignorance, or stupidity.

    3) The NAP(IVP) then is not the result of rational thought but of either deceit, or justification, or a combination of wishful thinking and bias using only the process or reasoning, and a conclusion of reasonableness by the ignorant and stupid.

    4) Does any statement that the NAP(IVP) is the result of rational action would also mean that the NAP(IVP) is sufficient for rational action? Well if the NAP is not the result of rational analysis, nor is it sufficient for the determination of rational action, and at the same time one justifies the NAP as sufficient for rational action, then it’s either an error or a deception to state your original claim. Right. Ergo it is your failure to grasp all these consequences and the meaning of your own statement that leads to my criticism – just as I have said all along.

    REMAINING ISSUES

    The rest of your justification (argument) is made possible using various Errors by way of Egoistic Appeals to Intuitive Truth by misrepresenting the subjective as the objective. But I suspect I would need to delve into your use of the terms ‘fact” and “recognize” just as I have had to delve into your misuse of the term “rational”.

    The reason I believe you make this error, is that you are subconsciously conflating preference and subjective VALUE, with existence and objective TRUTH. Although I suspect I would also need to delve into that subject in order to explain it to you.

    So the net is that I believe you are an honest, but heavily cognitively biased person, punching far above your weight, because you lack the knowledge and skill to make the arguments that you proffer, and instead are merely justifying those biases and priors by searching for excuses to defend them using what amounts to pseudoscientific reasoning.

    This does not mean you are a bad person. It means that you were a successful host (useful idiot) for one of the great lies of the twentieth century. Better minds than yours were fooled. You should not feel bad. Only seek to learn why you err, and how to avoid that error in the future.

    Curt Doolittle,

    The Propertarian Institute,

    Kiev, Ukraine

    (PS: This is how philosophy is done. I am very, very, very good at what I do, and I am keenly aware of it. People often mistake my sketches and brevity as the maximum capacity of my argumentative construction, but that is not the case. I cannot afford to produce every experiment in communication as a complete analytic argument, any more than a sculptor can produce every work in bronze, an architectural idea as finished building.)

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-16 06:28:00 UTC

  • I understand the brainstem-biases. We can search to confirm them. Or we can sear

    I understand the brainstem-biases. We can search to confirm them. Or we can search for truth independently of them. And overcome them when we choose.

    This does not appear to be a common discipline.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-16 03:33:00 UTC

  • Love is part of our movement. We must teach men to love one another again. Becau

    Love is part of our movement.

    We must teach men to love one another again.

    Because with love we speak the truth, build trust, build commons.

    “I love you man” is the best signal I know how to send.

    The best bond I know how to build.

    The best promise I know how to make.

    The best loyalty I know how to maintain.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-15 17:22:00 UTC

  • Q&A: GREAT QUESTION! —“CURT: Can you explain your disdain for “rationalism”? A

    Q&A: GREAT QUESTION!

    —“CURT: Can you explain your disdain for “rationalism”? And how differentiate it with critical-rationalism?”—

    SIMPLE ANSWER ON DIFFERENCES : SCOPE OF YOUR WARRANTY

    1) Rationalism requires we test for internal consistency(logical) and non contradiction(not false), but not that we test for external correspondence (empirically consistent) in order to attempt to falsify our ideas (hypotheses). In other words we don’t have to warranty that our ideas are externallly correspondent. We can claim that we have been forthright (rational) and free of blame for having made rational choices.

    2) Critical rationalism requires that we test for internal consistency, and external correspondence, and that we attempt to falsify them because confirming them is meaningless..

    3) Testimonialism asks us to test by rationalism, critical rationalism, and moral objectivity.

    SIMPLE ANSWER ON RATIONALISM IN ETHICS

    In the sequence: pedagogical ethics, virtue ethics, rule ethics, outcome ethics, and testimonial ethics, each describes the ethical model one must rely upon given one’s knowledge and understanding.

    Now if one uses an ethical model lower than one’s understanding, then one can intentionally use that lower ethical criteria to justify unethical behavior.

    This is what libertines (libertarians) do, when they refer to the NAP and self determination of morality. They are claiming non-responsibiity for externalities caused by their actions.

    So you sort of have to warranty your actions by using an ethical system someone will believe you are not using for theft.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-15 12:07:00 UTC

  • THE SYNTHESIS I am not going to finish this today but I want to get it out for t

    THE SYNTHESIS

    I am not going to finish this today but I want to get it out for the wow factor in case I get hit by a bus or something.

    IN ORDER TO ACT IN REALITY WE MUST WARRANTY OUR JUDGEMENTS

    ***I warranty to myself and to others that I performed due diligence prior to my actions – including speech – such that my actions imposed no net cost upon myself, or upon others, and by doing so, harmed both my survivability and the incentive to voluntarily cooperate while being free of the imposition of cost by others.***

    THEREFORE

    ***as the complexity of CONSEQUENCES of ERROR increase, the degree of due diligence I must perform in order to provide myself and others a warranty that my reasoning and actions perform no harm to myself or others***

    THE POWER OF THE HUMAN MIND IS ITS SEARCH ENGINE (INTUITION) NOT NECESSARILY ITS REASON.

    ***Our reason provides us both with search improvement and warranty***

    ABILITY BIASES

    – Gender

    – Intelligence

    – Impulsively

    – Aggression

    – Reproductive Fitness

    – Cooperative Fitness

    MORAL BIASES

    Individual Property Rights:

    1. Care/harm (The asset of life and body.)

    2. Proportionality/cheating, (The asset of goods.)

    3. Liberty/Oppression, (The asset of time, opportunity.)

    Community Property Rights

    4. In-Group Loyalty/In-Group Betrayal to/of your group, family, nation, polity.

    5. Respect/Authority/Subversion for tradition and legitimate authority.

    6. Purity/Sanctity/Degradation/Disgust, avoiding disgusting things, foods, actions.

    DEMONSTRATED PROPERTY

    I. SELF-PROPERTY

    Personal property: “Things an individual has a Monopoly Of Control over the use of.”

    a) Physical Body

    b) Actions and Time

    c) Memories, Concepts and Identities: tools that enable us to plan and act. In the consumer economy this includes brands.

    d) Status and Class (mate and relation selection, and reputation.)

    II. PERSONAL PROPERTY

    a) Several Property: Those things external to our bodies that we claim a monopoly of control over.

    III. KINSHIP PROPERTY

    a) Mates (access to sex/reproduction)

    b) Children (genetics)

    c) Familial Relations (security)

    d) Non-Familial Relations (utility)

    e) Consanguineous property (tribal and family ties)

    IV. COOPERATIVE PROPERTY

    a) Organizational ties (work)

    b) Knowledge ties (skills, crafts)

    V. SHAREHOLDER PROPERTY

    a) Shares: Recorded And Quantified Shareholder Property (physical shares in a tradable asset)

    b) Commons: Unrecorded and Unquantified Shareholder Property (shares in commons)

    c) Artificial Property: (property created by fiat agreement) Intellectual Property.

    VI. INFORMAL INSTITUTIONAL PROPERTY:

    a) Informal (Normative) Property: Our norms: manners, ethics, morals, myths, and rituals that consist of our social portfolio and which make our social order possible.

    VII. FORMAL INSTITUTIONAL PROPERTY

    a) Formal Institutional Property: Formal (Procedural) Institutions: Our institutions: Religion (including the secular religion), Government, Laws.

    SYSTEMS

    – System -1 = Acquisition (objective)

    – System 0 = Property (biased)

    – System 1 = Intuition (search)

    – System 2 = Reason (comparison)

    CONCEPTUAL SEQUENCE

    1 – Perception

    2 – Experience

    3 – Comprehension (identity)

    4 – Association (imagination) (search)

    5 – Criticism (testing) (reason)

    6 – Valuation (judgement) (reason)

    7 – Decision (reason)

    8 – Action (test)

    HIERARCHY OF TRUTHS

    1 – Understandable: True enough to imagine a conceptual relationship

    2 – Rationalizable: True enough for me to feel good about myself.

    3 – Rational: True enough for me to take actions that produce positive results.

    4 – Moral: True enough for me to not cause others to react negatively to me.

    5 – Decidable (Justice): True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion among my fellow people with similar values.

    6 – Decidable (justice): True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion across different peoples with different values.

    7 – True: True regardless of all opinions or perspectives.

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

    METHODS OF POSSIBLE WARRANTY

    1 – Understandable/Recognizable (imaginable, possible to imagine)

    2 – Reason (Reasonable, Reason)

    3 – Rationalism (internally Consistent, non contradictory)

    4 – Critical Rationalism (falsified for physical science)

    5 – Testimonialism (falsified for social science)

    ETHICAL AND MORAL WARRANTIES

    1 – Productive

    2 – Fully Informed

    3 – Warrantied

    4 – Voluntary

    5 – Transfer

    6 – Free of externalities to the contrary.

    SCIENTIFIC METHOD

    -fact-

    1 – Observation

    2 – Identification

    3 – Hypothesis

    4 – Criticism

    5 – Fact

    -theory-

    1 – Observation

    2 – Free Association (internal observation)

    3 – Identification

    4 – Hypothesis

    5 – Criticism

    6 – Theory

    -law-

    1 – Publication

    2 – Observation

    3 – Free Association

    4 – Hypothesis

    5 – Criticism

    6 – Law (survival)

    FULL SET OF WARRANTIES OF TRUTHFULNESS

    1 – Categorically consistent (non-conflationary)

    2 – Internally Consistent (logical and non-contradictory) “justifiable”

    3 – Externally correspondent (observably consistent) “demonstrable”

    4 – Existentially-Possible (operationally demonstrable and subjectively testable) “possible”

    5 – Moral (consisting of productive, fully informed, warr., vol. exch)

    6 – Fully Accounted (have we included all externalities?) “free of externalities”

    7 – Limited (what are the limits of the statement?) “Falsified”

    8 – Parsimonious (where is information lacking?) “internal limits”

    ETHICAL SPECTRUM

    1 – Pedagogical Ethics – youth

    2 – Virtue Ethics – young

    3 – Rule Ethics – adult

    4 – Outcome Ethics – mature adult

    5 – Testimonial Ethics – the wise adult

    ORGANIZATIONS OF PRODUCTION

    1 – Persistence of Existence (life)

    2 – Organization of Reproduction (family)

    3 – Organization of Production of Consumption

    4 – Organization of Production of Commons (investment)

    WEAPONS OF INFLUENCE, ORGANIZATION, COERCION

    1 – Violence ( Deprivation of Inventory )

    2 – Exchange ( Deprivation of opportunity )

    3 – Gossip ( Deprivation of cooperation )

    APPLICATION OF WEAPONS OF INFLUENCE

    The Demand for Production – Using Gossip (shaming)

    The Involuntary Organization of Production – Using Force

    The Voluntary Organization of Production – Exchange

    PHILOSOPHICAL SYSTEMS

    Metaphysical

    ……..Heroism (demonstrated excellence)

    ……..Science (truth) ……

    ……..Naturalism (reality)

    ……. Natural Law (sovereignty)

    Political

    ……..Consent, Contract, Republican(Meritocratic) Commons

    ……..Testimony, Common Law, Judge, Jury

    Moral

    ……..Christianity (love/trust bias)

    Spiritual (Aesthetic)

    …….Love of nature (animism/paganism)

    Personal

    …….Buddhism……….Stoicism

    …….Yoga…………..sport

    …….Nurturing………Craftsmanship.

    …….Spiritual ……..Political (mental?)

    …….Experiential……Actionable

    …….Feminine …….. Masculine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-15 11:26:00 UTC

  • ***”Internal consistency is insufficient for truth propositions in non axiomatic

    ***”Internal consistency is insufficient for truth propositions in non axiomatic systems without external correspondence to replace those axioms with limits.”***

    That sentence is extremely powerful.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-15 03:50:00 UTC

  • “Religion’s “warranty” is unverifiable (unobservable afterlife or reincarnation)

    —“Religion’s “warranty” is unverifiable (unobservable afterlife or reincarnation).”— Steve Pender

    Productive, Fully Informed, Warrantied, Voluntary Transfer consisting only of externalities of the same.

    Violates the rule of warranty.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-14 13:50:00 UTC

  • The Challenge of Our Time is Deceit

    [W]e spend a lot of time on logical fallacies, which assume mere error on the part of one’s opponent. We have begun to spend a lot of time on Cognitive Biases which affect one’s opponent. But both of these disciplines assume that the other party errs. When the problem of modern era, is not error but deception: lying. Social Pseudoscience, Keynesian Pseudoscience, postmodernism, rationalist obscurantism, propaganda and overloading, rallying and shaming, feminism, political correctness, religion and mysticism, democratic secular humanism (a pseudoscientific religion). All of these are possible not by error, not by bias, but by the organized use of language and media as a means of conducting theft by deception. The problem of our time is DECEPTION. How do we cleanse the commons of deceit? That’s why I work on Testimonialism (truth telling) and propertarianism (limits of human action) and propertarian liberalism (the market construction of commons.) End the century of lies.