Curt Doolittle

Theme: Truth

  • “Meaning” Is A Great Way of Lying

    [I]t really doesn’t matter what an author says or intends. What matters is whether its true or not- and I do not mean internally consistent, I mean externally correspondent. When we roll a bag of conceptual marbles down the hill, we do not control them – reality does. When we roll our sentences into the public it does not matter what we say or how we say it but whether what we say is true and truthful.


    Nothing marx, freud and rothbard say for example is truthfully expressed, so we cannot judge an author by his own terms, but on whether his arguments are operationally possible in reality.


    Meaning is a great way to lie. Which is useful in myths and religious dogma. It was useful in pseudosciences. It was useful in the fallacy of psychologizing. It was useful by the postmoderns. It is useful in all public speech. But it is just a perfect vehicle for lying.


    I run into this all the time, when criticizing certain authors. My favorite is still the typical economist’s reply that ‘we don’t concern ourselves with that’.


    Which makes me crazy because they do affect that which they claim to ignore, without admitting that it is precisely what they ignore that allows them to justify their work.
    Marx is better though. Best. Liar.Ever.

  • “Meaning” Is A Great Way of Lying

    [I]t really doesn’t matter what an author says or intends. What matters is whether its true or not- and I do not mean internally consistent, I mean externally correspondent. When we roll a bag of conceptual marbles down the hill, we do not control them – reality does. When we roll our sentences into the public it does not matter what we say or how we say it but whether what we say is true and truthful.


    Nothing marx, freud and rothbard say for example is truthfully expressed, so we cannot judge an author by his own terms, but on whether his arguments are operationally possible in reality.


    Meaning is a great way to lie. Which is useful in myths and religious dogma. It was useful in pseudosciences. It was useful in the fallacy of psychologizing. It was useful by the postmoderns. It is useful in all public speech. But it is just a perfect vehicle for lying.


    I run into this all the time, when criticizing certain authors. My favorite is still the typical economist’s reply that ‘we don’t concern ourselves with that’.


    Which makes me crazy because they do affect that which they claim to ignore, without admitting that it is precisely what they ignore that allows them to justify their work.
    Marx is better though. Best. Liar.Ever.

  • AUTHORS INTENTIONS AND WORDS ARE A CONVENIENT DECEPTION. It really doesn’t matte

    AUTHORS INTENTIONS AND WORDS ARE A CONVENIENT DECEPTION.

    It really doesn’t matter what an author says or intends. What matters is whether its true or not- and I do not mean internally consistent, I mean externally correspondent. In the sense that logical conclusions can be and must be drawn from any set of statements. and that the author’s ‘way of thinking’ is either correspondent with reality or not. Most of the time, it’s not. That’s what separates pseudoscience, rationalism, mysticism from truth telling (science).

    When we roll a bag of conceptual marbles down the hill, we do not control them – reality does. When we roll our sentences into the public it does not matter what we say or how we say it but whether what we say is true and truthful.

    Nothing marx, freud and rothbard say for example, is truthfully expressed. So we cannot judge an author by his own terms, but on whether his arguments are operationally possible in reality, regardless of what he means, intends, or portends.

    Meaning is a great way to lie. Which is useful in myths and religious dogma. It was useful in pseudosciences. It was useful in the fallacy of psychologizing. It was useful by the postmoderns. It is useful in all public speech. But it is just a perfect vehicle for lying.

    I run into this all the time, when criticizing certain authors. My favorite is still the typical economist’s reply that ‘we don’t concern ourselves with that’.

    Which makes me crazy because they do affect that which they claim to ignore, without admitting that it is precisely what they ignore that allows them to justify their work.

    Marx is better though. Best. Liar.Ever.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-17 08:00:00 UTC

  • TRUTH UNDER PROPERTARIANISM (getting very close now) The Question: How do we war

    TRUTH UNDER PROPERTARIANISM

    (getting very close now)

    The Question:

    How do we warranty that we speak the truth, given any subset of properties of reality? Testimonial truth is a promise, a warranty. But a warranty of what? All knowledge is theoretical; and all non-tautological, non-trivial premises and propositions are theoretical. Therefore how to we know our theories can be warrantied?

    We can warranty that our statement somewhere in this spectrum:

    0) Sensible (intuitively possible)

    1) Meaningfully expressible ( as an hypothesis )

    2) Internally consistent and falsifiable (logically consistent – rational)

    3) Externally correspondent and Falsifiable ( physically testable – correlative)

    4) Existentially possible (operationally construct-able/observable)

    5) Voluntarily choose-able (voluntary exchange / rational choice)

    6) Market-survivable (criticism – theory )

    7) Market irrefutable (law)

    8) Irrefutable under original experience (Perceivable Truth)

    9) Ultimately parsimonious description (Analytic Truth)

    10) Informationally complete and tautologically identical (Platonic Truth – Imaginary)

    And we can state what criteria any proposition tested on this spectrum satisfied. And we can conversely state whether a proposition is required to satisfy each criteria.

    All disciplines are subject to this list, and to testimony. All that differs is whether the properties are necessary for application of the theory to the context (scale) at hand.

    Only such statements made under this warranty, are classifiable as moral: consisting of Truthful, fully informed, productive, voluntary exchange free of negative externality.

    OUR WARRANTY IS:

    I. A statement is stated *TRUTHFULLY*: satisfying the criteria for such a warranty to be made.

    II. A statement is *TRUE*: Assuming that we eliminated the barriers of time, space, scale, and observability, we warranty that one would come to the same conclusion if equally truthful in his actions.

    We can never state whether a statement is “Absolutely True”, as in satisfying Platonic truth. And rarely can we state that we have satisfied analytic truth, and only at human scale can we testify that we have satisfied Perceivable Truth – original experience. But we can always state whether we have stated something truthfully.

    The question is only *whether we truly desire to*.

    CRITICISM OF INTELLECTUAL HISTORY

    Things can’t ‘be’ true, we can only speak/write truthfully.

    We have been obsessed with science and math rather than seeing them as simple subsets of the more complex problem. And in the west, we took truth telling for granted, when it is the first principle upon which all other western advances were made.

    (Next. Information Differences Necessary in Verbal Expression)

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-17 07:53:00 UTC

  • I don’t do should. I do is, want, incentive, exchange and institution. Should an

    I don’t do should. I do is, want, incentive, exchange and institution. Should and belief are quaint antique words left over from the mystical era, for use with the ignorant, unintelligent, and little children.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-15 12:58:00 UTC

  • Propertarianism’s Testimonial Truth

    [T]he Question:
    How do we warranty that we speak the truth, given any subset of properties of reality? Testimonial truth is a promise, a warranty.  But a warranty of what?  All knowledge is theoretical; and all non-tautological, non-trivial premises and propositions are theoretical.  Therefore how to we know our theories can be warrantied?

    We can warranty that our statement somewhere in this spectrum:

    And we can state what criteria any proposition tested on this spectrum satisfied. And we can conversely state whether a proposition is required to satisfy each criteria. 

    All disciplines are subject to this list, and to testimony.  All that differs is whether the properties are necessary for application of the theory to the context (scale) at hand.

    Only such statements made under this warranty, are classifiable as moral: consisting of Truthful, fully informed, productive, voluntary exchange free of negative externality.

    The Warranty that we give is that:

    • I. A statement is stated *TRUTHFULLY*: satisfying the criteria for such a warranty to be made.
    • II. A statement is *TRUE*: Assuming that we eliminated the barriers of time, space, scale, and observability, we warranty that one would come to the same conclusion if equally truthful in his actions.

    We can never state whether a statement is “Absolutely True”, as in satisfying Platonic truth. And rarely can we state that we have satisfied analytic truth, and only at human scale can we testify that we have satisfied Perceivable Truth – original experience.  But we can always state whether we have stated something truthfully.

    The question is only *whether we truly desire to*.

    Criticism of Intellectual History:
    We have been obsessed with science and math rather than seeing them as simple subsets of the more complex problem. And in the west, we took truth telling for granted, when it is the first principle upon which all other western advances were made.

    (Next. Information Differences Necessary in Verbal Expression)

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine.

  • Propertarianism’s Testimonial Truth

    [T]he Question:
    How do we warranty that we speak the truth, given any subset of properties of reality? Testimonial truth is a promise, a warranty.  But a warranty of what?  All knowledge is theoretical; and all non-tautological, non-trivial premises and propositions are theoretical.  Therefore how to we know our theories can be warrantied?

    We can warranty that our statement somewhere in this spectrum:

    And we can state what criteria any proposition tested on this spectrum satisfied. And we can conversely state whether a proposition is required to satisfy each criteria. 

    All disciplines are subject to this list, and to testimony.  All that differs is whether the properties are necessary for application of the theory to the context (scale) at hand.

    Only such statements made under this warranty, are classifiable as moral: consisting of Truthful, fully informed, productive, voluntary exchange free of negative externality.

    The Warranty that we give is that:

    • I. A statement is stated *TRUTHFULLY*: satisfying the criteria for such a warranty to be made.
    • II. A statement is *TRUE*: Assuming that we eliminated the barriers of time, space, scale, and observability, we warranty that one would come to the same conclusion if equally truthful in his actions.

    We can never state whether a statement is “Absolutely True”, as in satisfying Platonic truth. And rarely can we state that we have satisfied analytic truth, and only at human scale can we testify that we have satisfied Perceivable Truth – original experience.  But we can always state whether we have stated something truthfully.

    The question is only *whether we truly desire to*.

    Criticism of Intellectual History:
    We have been obsessed with science and math rather than seeing them as simple subsets of the more complex problem. And in the west, we took truth telling for granted, when it is the first principle upon which all other western advances were made.

    (Next. Information Differences Necessary in Verbal Expression)

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine.

  • VERBAL PICKPOCKETS You object to propertarian constraints on political speech? W

    VERBAL PICKPOCKETS

    You object to propertarian constraints on political speech? Well, what you really mean, is that you will be deprived of your ability to conduct cunning verbal deceptions and thefts, that you have come to see as your privilege. But I fail to see how wit and soft thefts, is materially any different from violence and hard thefts. Thefts are thefts.

    The Cathedral’s academy trains legions of conceptual pickpockets, petty thieves, and brigands. Education that makes men cunning is no the same as education that makes men moral. Moral men eschew all theft, cunning men seek it.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-15 04:03:00 UTC

  • Libertines can’t handle the truth. 😉

    Libertines can’t handle the truth. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-15 03:33:00 UTC

  • TRUTH The question: how do we speak the truth, given any subset of properties of

    TRUTH

    The question: how do we speak the truth, given any subset of properties of reality?

    “Truthful” – Testimonial Truth – A Warranty, but of what?

    1) meaningfully expressible ( hypothesis )

    2) internally consistent (logically consistent)

    3) externally correspondent ( physically testable )

    4) existentially possible (operational construction)

    5) voluntarily choose-able (voluntary exchange)

    6) market-survivable (criticism – theory )

    7) market irrefutable (law)

    8) irrefutable under original experience (True)

    The Warranty:

    I. *TRUE*: Assuming elimination of the barriers of time, space, scale, and observability, a promise that one would come to the same conclusion if equally truthful in his actions.

    II. *TRUTHFUL*: the criteria for such a warranty to be made.

    Criticism of Intellectual History:

    we have been obsessed with science and math rather than seeing them as simple subsets of the more complex problem. And in the west, we took truth telling for granted, when it is the first principle upon which all other western advances were made.

    (Next. Information Differences Necessary in Verbal Expression)

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-15 03:17:00 UTC