(worth repeating) (extension of hierarchy of truth) (interesting for language geeks)***The purpose of science is not to convey the experience but to provide decidability in matters of dispute over existence regardless of experience.*** [L]ets note the difference between the following points of view. 1 existence, 2 experience of the universe, 3 utility in determining one’s action, 4 observation of an action and consequences 5 justification of the results of one’s action, 6 warranty in recommendation of action*, 7 and decidability in conflict*, …describes a spectrum of problems we must understand. Our grammar does not readily address these differences, and our problem of the verb to-be exacerbates the problem since ‘is’ evolved specifically to avoid the problem of articulating this spectrum, thereby allowing the audience to infer it. I work on the last two*. I think humans are pretty good at experience and utility. And some of us are pretty good at justificatoin. Largely, since justification is the language of morality, most people tend to use moral language. Imagine a language that required you address these seven degrees of truth in one’s grammar. Imagine the kind of self awareness one would need to avoid conflation of each of them. We have enough problem with people saying “it’s true for me” when they mean that it is sufficiently useful for me to act”.
Theme: Truth
-
True Enough? Imagine A Grammar That Promised Truth Content
(worth repeating) (extension of hierarchy of truth) (interesting for language geeks)***The purpose of science is not to convey the experience but to provide decidability in matters of dispute over existence regardless of experience.*** [L]ets note the difference between the following points of view. 1 existence, 2 experience of the universe, 3 utility in determining one’s action, 4 observation of an action and consequences 5 justification of the results of one’s action, 6 warranty in recommendation of action*, 7 and decidability in conflict*, …describes a spectrum of problems we must understand. Our grammar does not readily address these differences, and our problem of the verb to-be exacerbates the problem since ‘is’ evolved specifically to avoid the problem of articulating this spectrum, thereby allowing the audience to infer it. I work on the last two*. I think humans are pretty good at experience and utility. And some of us are pretty good at justificatoin. Largely, since justification is the language of morality, most people tend to use moral language. Imagine a language that required you address these seven degrees of truth in one’s grammar. Imagine the kind of self awareness one would need to avoid conflation of each of them. We have enough problem with people saying “it’s true for me” when they mean that it is sufficiently useful for me to act”.
-
Q&A: “Why do people get triggered by Curt…”
Q&A: “Why do people get triggered by Curt and immediately downvote his videos? They’re at least interesting ideas to entertain even if you don’t accept them.”
[I] have been openly attacking the MI hierarchy for two years now. And they have no response to my criticisms (they cant have one really – they can only adapt to them.) People invest their self worth in these ideologies to the point which they are not competing institutional solutions but hats to hang one’s self worth upon. It’s only logical that they defend their priors by non rational, non-empirical, largely symbolic and emotional means. The great thing about Rothbard is that despite being mostly wrong, he’s partly right, and what he’s right about is relatively easy for amateurs to understand. If people understood my arguments they would grok that I’m completing the ancap project by converting it from pseudoscience and kantian rationalism to a scientific argument that’s uniform across biology, morality, philosophy, law, politics and economics. Which, just in terms of explanatory power is pretty hard to criticize. But if the end result is preservation of investment, preservation of self image, rejection of the effort and time needed to improve one’s knowledge and a justification of non-contribution to the commons for the because one is rejected by the mainstream culture, then that’s an excuse for one’s behavior not a pursuit of a moral good, a sustainable political order, or an scientific truth about cooperation among men. Cheers
-
Q&A: “Why do people get triggered by Curt…”
Q&A: “Why do people get triggered by Curt and immediately downvote his videos? They’re at least interesting ideas to entertain even if you don’t accept them.”
[I] have been openly attacking the MI hierarchy for two years now. And they have no response to my criticisms (they cant have one really – they can only adapt to them.) People invest their self worth in these ideologies to the point which they are not competing institutional solutions but hats to hang one’s self worth upon. It’s only logical that they defend their priors by non rational, non-empirical, largely symbolic and emotional means. The great thing about Rothbard is that despite being mostly wrong, he’s partly right, and what he’s right about is relatively easy for amateurs to understand. If people understood my arguments they would grok that I’m completing the ancap project by converting it from pseudoscience and kantian rationalism to a scientific argument that’s uniform across biology, morality, philosophy, law, politics and economics. Which, just in terms of explanatory power is pretty hard to criticize. But if the end result is preservation of investment, preservation of self image, rejection of the effort and time needed to improve one’s knowledge and a justification of non-contribution to the commons for the because one is rejected by the mainstream culture, then that’s an excuse for one’s behavior not a pursuit of a moral good, a sustainable political order, or an scientific truth about cooperation among men. Cheers
-
Why Is Propertarianism’s Explanatory Power So Important?
[W]ell, look at each discipline as a set of criticisms than any theory has to survive scrutiny. A unit of measure, or method of comparison, might be informative inside of a particular discipline, but meaningless across disciplines (happiness for example makes no sense in mathematics, yet at least basic mathematics makes sense in experimental psychology). Propertarianism not only survives criticism in each discipline but renders all disciplines commensurable – sort of how money and prices make the value of all goods commensurable. So one might attempt, falsely, to justify propertarianism and testimonialism as true, or one might say, that given it survives application to all these different fields, and unites these fields, survives as a truth candidate until a superior truth candidate comes along. Unifying Biology, Psychology, Sociology, Morality, Law, Economics and Philosophy is no small thing. It’s a very important thing. And yes, it’s a bit hard to learn critical rationalism, testimonialism, propertarianism, propertarian institutions, and propertarian legal construction. But it’s equally hard to learn many other disciplines. But all investments provide returns or not. The fact that propertarianism and testimonialism provide such broad explanatory power, survives application in all fields, provides commensurability across all fields, is enough, hopefully, for some of us to invest in this discipline versus some different discipline. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.
-
Why Is Propertarianism’s Explanatory Power So Important?
[W]ell, look at each discipline as a set of criticisms than any theory has to survive scrutiny. A unit of measure, or method of comparison, might be informative inside of a particular discipline, but meaningless across disciplines (happiness for example makes no sense in mathematics, yet at least basic mathematics makes sense in experimental psychology). Propertarianism not only survives criticism in each discipline but renders all disciplines commensurable – sort of how money and prices make the value of all goods commensurable. So one might attempt, falsely, to justify propertarianism and testimonialism as true, or one might say, that given it survives application to all these different fields, and unites these fields, survives as a truth candidate until a superior truth candidate comes along. Unifying Biology, Psychology, Sociology, Morality, Law, Economics and Philosophy is no small thing. It’s a very important thing. And yes, it’s a bit hard to learn critical rationalism, testimonialism, propertarianism, propertarian institutions, and propertarian legal construction. But it’s equally hard to learn many other disciplines. But all investments provide returns or not. The fact that propertarianism and testimonialism provide such broad explanatory power, survives application in all fields, provides commensurability across all fields, is enough, hopefully, for some of us to invest in this discipline versus some different discipline. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.
-
We All Weaponize Something Or Other…
[I] suppose that weaponizing truth and commons is our strategy. From the rest of the world’s position, weaponizing testimony has produced all our technological advantages (christians), and we use that technological advantage to out compete others – and to colonize them. Some groups are very very good at fighting (Russians). Some other groups are just really, really, really good liars – they have weaponized lying in order to take advantage of altruism (Jews). Some have weaponized conquest, bureaucracy, and rule (china). Some other groups just steal great treasures from the weakened (Arabs). Some other groups just steal small amounts from the strong. (gypsies). I mean, in any distribution of verbally talented people you will find those who engage in truth telling, those who engage in pragmatism, and those who engage in lying. We should expect groups of verbally talented people to contain cadres that specialize in cheating, suggestion, obscurantism, loading, framing, pseudoscience and lying. We all do something or other. The question is, can we all stop doing the negatives and only engage in production. Which sounds good if you’re at the top of the pyramid but not so much if you’re lower down. Meritocracy favors the good. Not everyone can compete in goodness.
-
We All Weaponize Something Or Other…
[I] suppose that weaponizing truth and commons is our strategy. From the rest of the world’s position, weaponizing testimony has produced all our technological advantages (christians), and we use that technological advantage to out compete others – and to colonize them. Some groups are very very good at fighting (Russians). Some other groups are just really, really, really good liars – they have weaponized lying in order to take advantage of altruism (Jews). Some have weaponized conquest, bureaucracy, and rule (china). Some other groups just steal great treasures from the weakened (Arabs). Some other groups just steal small amounts from the strong. (gypsies). I mean, in any distribution of verbally talented people you will find those who engage in truth telling, those who engage in pragmatism, and those who engage in lying. We should expect groups of verbally talented people to contain cadres that specialize in cheating, suggestion, obscurantism, loading, framing, pseudoscience and lying. We all do something or other. The question is, can we all stop doing the negatives and only engage in production. Which sounds good if you’re at the top of the pyramid but not so much if you’re lower down. Meritocracy favors the good. Not everyone can compete in goodness.
