Theme: Truth

  • THE DEVELOPMENT, DESTRUCTION AND RESTORATION OF TRUTH THE CONSEQUENCES OF TRUTH

    THE DEVELOPMENT, DESTRUCTION AND RESTORATION OF TRUTH

    THE CONSEQUENCES OF TRUTH TELLING

    What we westerners didn’t and don’t understand is the importance of truth telling as constant training for seeing the world in terms that we would eventually call ‘scientific’. And, consequently, if you tell the truth then you require debate to resolve conflicts. If you conduct debate you require reason. If you conduct reason you will eventually require science (evidence). If you conduct science you will eventually run into the problem of observability and scale and require instruments (instrumentalism). You do not require a third party ideal mythology as means of arbitrating rules. If you tell the truth you can use a jury, and do not need a third party authority arbitrating disputes. Instead of a mythology you can construct common laws. If you tell the truth and have common laws you can build trade FASTER than other people build trade. And that is the secret to the west. We started the bronze age later than everyone else, and produce the first steps of the industrial revolution in greece. We were forcibly indoctrinated into authoritarianism under Christianity, but once we rid ourselves of the authoritarianism, we built the second industrial revolution, and dragged the world out of ignorance and poverty in only 500 years.

    Truth telling creates universalism. Just as much as distributed family structures do under manorialism.

    BRIBERY INTO A CULTURE OF LIES

    Meanwhile the utility of not speaking the truth, or speaking in allegory (loaded and framed language) or using overloading to force allegorical speech (monotheistic religion), is a constant competitor to the high cost of truth telling to the individual, but the high value of truth telling to the group.

    So, competitor need only bribe you marginally, and eliminate the punishment for not telling the truth, and eventually, not thinking truthfully, or even, turning lying into a ‘good’, in order easily persuade a population to justify not telling the truth.

    The easiest way to to do that is by overloading: To use the media. Public intellectuals. Academics. Writers. To saturate society with bribes to cease paying the high cost of truth telling.

    The conspiracy against truth telling. Bribery into lying. And funding it with the state redistribution, and entertainment media.

    THE RESTORATION

    The commons is our property. The property of any man who would fight to keep the land upon which we build physical and normative commons. Any shareholder can bring a suit against violations of that property. And under common law we can force the truth. And we can re-habituate truth by prosecuting and punishing liars, and those who create the incentive to lie. There is no difference between a virus that damages hardware and a meme that damages the commons of truth telling. Intellectuals produce products for the commons, and if you are paid for the production of those products then you are open to prosecution for the selling of defective and harmful products.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine


    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-31 03:21:00 UTC

  • TELLING THE TRUTH VS BUILDING HIGH TRUST An essay on responsibility for speaking

    TELLING THE TRUTH VS BUILDING HIGH TRUST

    An essay on responsibility for speaking the truth, producing the consequence of high trust.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-30 13:34:00 UTC

  • DRAFT OF “THE TECHNIQUE OF CRITIQUE” (understanding dishonest debate tactics and

    DRAFT OF “THE TECHNIQUE OF CRITIQUE”

    (understanding dishonest debate tactics and propaganda)

    The complex deceptive argument structure called Critique, it consists of these tactics,

    (a) Straw men points of advocacy as mere vehicles for criticism and attack,

    (b) Avoiding support of their argument, and using empty verbalisms defend it, confirming it with criticisms by returning to the attack rather than the demonstration of the strength of their ideas.

    (c) Using the “reasonable man” argument including moral appeals, appeals to reasonableness, to making individual exceptions to cases on an individual rather than facts and the problem of the consequences of exceptions at scale.

    (d) “Psychologizing” an ad hominem attacking the motivations of the opponent rather than the facts and structure of the argument.

    (e) Attempting to invoke guilt however possible.

    (f) Use of Ridicule, Shaming and Rallying as Moral Authoritarianism;

    (g) Overloading (saturation), Loading and Framing. (Use of suggestion)

    (h) Use of Verbalisms (analogies, moral reasoning, and pseudoscience);

    (i) Use of terminology as a logically authoritarian truth, rather than convention and claiming ignorance or incomprehension of alternatives.

    (j) Retreat into Dogma, and moral offense, and return to critique

    (k) Appeal to heroic figures with unworthy praise;

    (l) Flooding a market with confirmatory propaganda.

    (m) Use of dogma and verbalism to create a sectarian language with sectarian meaning and thereby constructing in-group/out-group conditions (a cult).

    (n) Offering in-group membership for compliance, and threatening out-group membership for non-compliance.

    In other words, they don’t defend their ideas (because they aren’t defensible) they merely use any weak idea, and the weaker the better, because it is easier to defend verbally and harder to attack logically, as a means of attacking your idea. (See Lew Rockwell’s most recent book as an example of a promised solution but delivering nothing but chapters of criticism without any solution provided.)

    The strategy of Critique is to use western altruism (exaggerated universal morality) to create a sense of guilt against in-group members, and to invoke western altruistic punishment against in-group members, and therefore create an environment where out-group members can use deception, trickery and verbalism to employ systemic parasitism, rather than engaging in mutually beneficial production – while arguing that the approach is for the good of all.

    In effect it is an elaborate set of deceptions and lies in order to overload the conversation such that we must rely on moral intuition rather than reason.

    It is another assault on truth telling, and the aristocratic society. An attempt to cast immoral as moral.

    Understand that the Misesian/Rothardian “Austrian” split is not Austrian at all, but yet another avenue for Critique. The only Austrians are the classical liberals at GMU etc.

    COUNTERING CRITIQUE

    1) As in any argument counter with the truth by calling out their tactic, refuse guilt for what is in your group interest, then return to the central argument.

    DONE

    So, it’s done. They’re done. It’s just a matter of putting in enough hands, and filling it all in.

    Put a fork in it.

    Ready to serve.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-30 13:31:00 UTC

  • WISHFUL THINKING IN ARGUMENT IS MORAL DECEPTION? yep. it’s lying. Its a form of

    WISHFUL THINKING IN ARGUMENT IS MORAL DECEPTION?

    yep. it’s lying. Its a form of shaming.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-30 10:45:00 UTC

  • TRUST VS TRUTH (profound) Lets contrast the golden and silver rules with trust a

    TRUST VS TRUTH

    (profound)

    Lets contrast the golden and silver rules with trust and truth. And lets start out stating the unintuitive: that the Nazarene got it wrong: we should not do unto others as we would want done unto us. Because that is implicitly authoritarian once you realize it means you set the rules of cooperation, not the other person. It’s actually an incredibly selfish strategy to build a culture upon. It actually insidious.

    Instead, we get a very different society if we use the principle **do not unto others that which they would not have done unto them** from the Anglo Saxon tradition. These are the not identical prescriptions they appear to be at first blush. The Nazarene’s is authoritarian metaphor couched as charity, and the second is libertarian (in the Protestant sense – meaning: aristocratic egalitarian), stated honestly.

    The same can be said for emphasizing TRUST rather than TRUTH. You cannot mandate trust. It is a description of an an experience and an effect. But what is the cause? We know that the result is the extension of in-group trust to out-group members. Sure. But what do we do to cause us to extend trust to out-group members?

    We speak the truth.

    Worse, emphasizing trust puts the requirement on the other, and never on you. Truth telling puts the requirement for trust building upon you.

    So, when we refer to ‘the high trust society’ the correct description is “the people who tell the truth”. And when we refer to the low trust society, the correct description is “the people who don’t tell the truth.” Or more precisely: “the people who lie.”

    Do you see how different that is?

    I thought so.

    Aristocratic Egalitarians: “The People Who Speak The Truth”

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-30 08:13:00 UTC

  • PERMANENT END TO TYRANNY The Civic Society. Men will be men again. Not slaves. A

    PERMANENT END TO TYRANNY

    The Civic Society. Men will be men again. Not slaves.

    Aristocratic Egalitarianism & Propertarianism & Testimonial Truth


    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-29 09:36:00 UTC

  • NEXT PROBLEM TO SOLVE: TABLE OF COMPARATIVE TRUTH So, now I have to work on comp

    NEXT PROBLEM TO SOLVE: TABLE OF COMPARATIVE TRUTH

    So, now I have to work on comparative “truth” in each civilization, by revisiting huntington and Fukuyama. But today, I’m spending the day with Macdonald again. Because while he has outlined the jewish strategy, I still must outline the anglo, german, and maybe islamic and Chinese strategies. I’d originally intended to tell the tale of the English, German and Jewish ‘cities’ but maybe I have to broaden it?

    Or do I just focus on the three important to the west, and give light treatment to the others. Strangely, because I studied chinese history in College, and because its an almost entirely military culture, I understand the Chinese strategy pretty clearly. Islam is fairly easy because it consists so thoroughly of a limited set of principles, tribalism, and inbreeding. I guess, german is the most simple. Because duty is not a hard concept to get across. It’s also martial.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-29 04:15:00 UTC

  • ALTERNATIVES TO PROPERTARIANISM —“I’m interested in application and other meth

    ALTERNATIVES TO PROPERTARIANISM

    —“I’m interested in application and other methods that purport to arrive at ‘legitimate’ conclusions that are either orthogonal or nearly synonymous but methodically separate from propertarianism. For example, Popper may have advocated CR but there is plenty left to be said about psychoanalysis or metaphysics or philosophy of mind that is not derived through its application…..Propertarianism may be one tool but how many tools are in the box? And how many boxes are there?”—

    Curt Doolittle

    I don’t deal with “legitimate” in other than legal terms, because I don’t know what that means in other than legal terms. Instead I deal with moral necessity. MEANING can be achieved through whatever devices we can creatively invent and apply. But I am not solving a problem of meaning (it is infinitely recursive) I am solving a problem of ethics, law, and politics: using language that must be rationally calculable (not open to loading and framing) independent of meaning. And as such, expressly NOT one of meaning. In Propertarianism I operate with the principle that cooperation requires prevention of parasitism, and that every theft (involuntary transfer) is a lost opportunity for exchange (production). As far as I know this the only universally ethical statement because ethics must be reducible to cooperation to have any logical content (meaning). This is not rationalism but science, since this is what we demonstrate no matter how primitive or advanced the society. We just prohibit more or less parasitism, and use more or less government depending upon our level of parasitism.

    So as far as I know cooperation can be represented by a formal grammar, which is an increase in the precision of the formal grammar of institutions. And all moral and immoral operations can be stated in this grammar. (This is what I suspect Mises was trying to get at.)

    But that doesn’t tell us anything other than how to make contracts and resolve conflicts. It doesn’t help us understand that women and men value states of affairs differently, and that they react positively and negatively (with joy or sorrow) to different states of affairs. And that we make compromises for in pursuit of a Nash equilibrium in everything we do, leaving all of us more satisfied than any other possible condition, while less satisfied that the condition we aspire to.

    It is the reality of this equilibrium that causes us our disappointments, and the fact that the genetic lottery aggressively makes you a loser as you vary negatively from the norm.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-28 09:08:00 UTC

  • Knowing is an Experience, Not an Action

    [K]nowing is an experience. Constructing an existence, logical, or mathematical, proof is an action. We can demonstrate them. That is not to say that they are true, it is to say that they are proofs. If we have constructed proofs, we may err, but it is very hard to lie. And even if one does, err, we need not hold him accountable for his error. Speaking truthfully, constructing a proof, and possessing the ultimate truth are very different things. I can however speak truthfully, and I can construct an existence proof, and that is the most that I can do. I can know those things even if I cannot know if I possess the truth. So what does that do for me? I doesn’t tell me anything about whether I possess the ultimate truth, but it does allow me to speak truthfully to the best of my ability – and that is all that we can ask of anyone. Because it is all that is possible for anyone. Conversely, we must ask it of anyone who seeks to place an argument into the commons the result of which would subject others to harm.

  • Knowing is an Experience, Not an Action

    [K]nowing is an experience. Constructing an existence, logical, or mathematical, proof is an action. We can demonstrate them. That is not to say that they are true, it is to say that they are proofs. If we have constructed proofs, we may err, but it is very hard to lie. And even if one does, err, we need not hold him accountable for his error. Speaking truthfully, constructing a proof, and possessing the ultimate truth are very different things. I can however speak truthfully, and I can construct an existence proof, and that is the most that I can do. I can know those things even if I cannot know if I possess the truth. So what does that do for me? I doesn’t tell me anything about whether I possess the ultimate truth, but it does allow me to speak truthfully to the best of my ability – and that is all that we can ask of anyone. Because it is all that is possible for anyone. Conversely, we must ask it of anyone who seeks to place an argument into the commons the result of which would subject others to harm.