Curt Doolittle

Theme: Truth

  • SUMMARY: He Who Can Destroy a Thing, Controls a Thing. Truth is Enough

    Jan 28, 2020, 2:44 PM THE SERIES: GSRRM > PILPUL > SOPHISM > FALSE PROMISE CRITIQUE > ABRAHAMISM (important) (core) GSRRM is a form of avoidance by conflating disapproval with falsehood. It uses escalating means of shaming in order to achieve with disapproval what is true but they cannot tolerate. SOPHISM or PILPUL is a tool of distraction and deception. In general it relies on uses of GSRRM, Idealism (abstractions), plus loading, framing, suggesting, obscuring, to (a) create a paradigm (b) that overloads your reason (b) and uses suggestion (c) to force you to appeal to your intuition (d) thus causing you to substitute your value judgements (e) thus creating a false impression of agreement, when the speaker has the opposite intentions in mind: deceit. Why? All communication requires we listen to a series of symbols that suggest a story of anything from a name to an epic narrative. At some point we understand (synchronize) with the speaker, and then either we or the speaker or both perform due diligence to warranty that we do not misunderstand. Sophism uses this period of suggestibility to cause you to fill in the blanks with information that corresponds to what the speaker says, but not to reality or any future reality. These systems fool you into falsehood. FALSE PROMISE, or SEDUCTION to avoid a reciprocal trade. (repeat that a few times so you grasp it). A false promise or seduction so that you will pay a cost and the other party will not. FICTIONALISM improves on SOPHISM but relying on telling more complex stores that undermine and overload the limits of the three human cognitive faculties: 1) the physical, 2) the logical, and the 3) emotional. The three techniques are 1) the magic-pseudoscience physical spectrum – the domain of pseudoscience, 2) the ideal-surreal rational spectrum- the domain of philosophy and 3) the supernatural-occult emotional spectrum – the domain of theology. These systems of deception offer discounts (false promises) of truthfulness and comprehension. They bait you into falsehood. CRITIQUE is a form of undermining by GSRRM, SOPHISM, and FICTIONALISM and then pointing out imperfections, or straw manning imperfections that are not there, exaggerated, irrelevant or meaningless, and not providing a superior competitive solution that can be compared. These systems undermine competing truthfully stated systems of thought. BAITING INTO HAZARD is a form of profiting from the use of the above techniques to profit from others error, fault, or failure of your engineering. Seduction and Usury are the canon examples. ABRAHAMISM combines all, and adds baiting into hazard, with false and unwarranted or unwarrantable promise as a means of profiting from undermining the host polity. If you understand this, you will have given names to the techniques of the enemy. The adoption of the female strategy of undermining males.

    By use of GSRRM as a substitute for solutions – usually to avoid payment, bearing of cost, or engaging in exchange. By the use of SOPHISM as a substitute for argument and reason. By the use of FALSE PROMISE to avoid an exchange. By the use of FICTIONALISMS to create more elaborate false promises. By the use of Critique to Undermine existing or proposed solutions without offering one that is viable. By the use of Abrahamism to combine all of these into a strategy for undermining host civilizations.Judaism to undermine, christianity to weaken islam to destroy civilization and reduce it to dysgenic ignorance and poverty. Marxism to foster conflict between classes with a monopoly underclass. Postmodernism to foster conflict between science and fictionalisms – and to undermine western civilization by undermining truth merit and markets. Feminism to foster conflict between the genders and destroy the family. Politicalcorrectness to suppress the truth. The enemy wants control they cannot manage like females want control they cannot manage if they have it. They follow the intuition of the herd. Conversely, we live in packs (families). We want no one to have control. We build a civilization without control. We built a civilization of markets and the resulting uncertainty. And we find joy in it. And we rescued mankind from ignorance with it. Aristotelianism, Realism, Naturalism, Operationalism, Logic, Testimony(Truth), History, Economics, Natural Law, Technology, Science, Mathematics and the Natural Eugenics of Markets between the classes to evolve man into the gods europeans imagined, while reveling in our achievements all the way to the heavens we will create.He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing.Truth is a weapon.It has always been our weapon.Take it from this forge.Wield it.Win.

  • The Copula: The First Step in Learning the Propertarian Method

      This is one of those surprisingly difficult concepts. We avoid the verb to be in operational language because it allows you the pretense of knowledge (promising what you can’t promise) without articulating a causal relationship. The simple example being the difference between ‘the book is on the table’ and ‘I promise i recall seeing a book on the table in the hallway’ or ‘I promise i see a book on the table and if you observe the table in the hall you will see a book on it also.” While this is a simple example, this operationalizing of language into testimonial speech makes almost all sophistry and deceit impossible to construct (really). In fact, most sophomoric philosophically ‘profound’ questions cannot be constructed in operational and testimonial terms. If you want to know more, spend thirty minutes reading four wiki articles: THE COPULA (VERB TO BE) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copula_(linguistics) EPRIME (ELIMINATING THE COPULA) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime PERFORMATIVE (EXISTENTIAL) TRUTH https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth#Performative (then read the rest of the article) OPERATIONALISM https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/operationalism FALSIFIABILITY https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability#Falsificationism By the use of performative statements, in ePrime, in Operational Vocabulary, we can falsify almost any claim to knowledge, understanding, consistency, coherence, and truth claims simply by the fact that it is almost impossible to state a falsehood in such gramamtical constraints, just as it is almost impossible to make well formed mathematical or programming statements in the grammatical constraints of mathematics in programming. DISAMBIGUATION BY SERIALIZATION AND OPERATIONALISM Most of P-Logic invovles learning how to disambiguate at term by creating an ordered list of terms (serialization) restating them in operational language, and adjusting their definitions so that they are each unique in meaning, yet represent a point on the spectrum of whatever constant relation you are making use of. THis is the first step in learning propertarian methods.

  • The Copula: The First Step in Learning the Propertarian Method

      This is one of those surprisingly difficult concepts. We avoid the verb to be in operational language because it allows you the pretense of knowledge (promising what you can’t promise) without articulating a causal relationship. The simple example being the difference between ‘the book is on the table’ and ‘I promise i recall seeing a book on the table in the hallway’ or ‘I promise i see a book on the table and if you observe the table in the hall you will see a book on it also.” While this is a simple example, this operationalizing of language into testimonial speech makes almost all sophistry and deceit impossible to construct (really). In fact, most sophomoric philosophically ‘profound’ questions cannot be constructed in operational and testimonial terms. If you want to know more, spend thirty minutes reading four wiki articles: THE COPULA (VERB TO BE) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copula_(linguistics) EPRIME (ELIMINATING THE COPULA) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime PERFORMATIVE (EXISTENTIAL) TRUTH https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth#Performative (then read the rest of the article) OPERATIONALISM https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/operationalism FALSIFIABILITY https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability#Falsificationism By the use of performative statements, in ePrime, in Operational Vocabulary, we can falsify almost any claim to knowledge, understanding, consistency, coherence, and truth claims simply by the fact that it is almost impossible to state a falsehood in such gramamtical constraints, just as it is almost impossible to make well formed mathematical or programming statements in the grammatical constraints of mathematics in programming. DISAMBIGUATION BY SERIALIZATION AND OPERATIONALISM Most of P-Logic invovles learning how to disambiguate at term by creating an ordered list of terms (serialization) restating them in operational language, and adjusting their definitions so that they are each unique in meaning, yet represent a point on the spectrum of whatever constant relation you are making use of. THis is the first step in learning propertarian methods.

  • It’s New and Only Hard Until It’s Not

    Jan 30, 2020, 6:06 PM by Brandon Hayes P, like everything new, is hard until it’s not. There are many popular thinkers and commentators now that are taking to not differentiating between “hard” and “new.” I like this for the effect it has on framing. It’s only hard cause it’s new; and it’s only new cause you just finished. 😉 P is simple; and quite frankly proper. The expulsion of deception solves for communicative misunderstanding (as saying “I understand you” when I don’t is a lie; deception). And if we don’t misunderstand each other than meaning can be relayed without delay. Only liars stand in the way; and if they don’t like being called liars… well, they ought to stop.

  • Jan 30, 2020, 7:51 PM —“Seems like” insinuates an association (bad or good, bu

    Jan 30, 2020, 7:51 PM

    —“Seems like” insinuates an association (bad or good, but usually bad) without putting forth any capital or reliable information to back your claim. The classic “I don’t really know, but I think I know, ya know?”–Zack Passmore

    (It’s an attempt to undermine without warrantying your words.)

  • Jan 30, 2020, 7:51 PM —“Seems like” insinuates an association (bad or good, bu

    Jan 30, 2020, 7:51 PM

    —“Seems like” insinuates an association (bad or good, but usually bad) without putting forth any capital or reliable information to back your claim. The classic “I don’t really know, but I think I know, ya know?”–Zack Passmore

    (It’s an attempt to undermine without warrantying your words.)

  • Yes We Can Falsify All Human Speech in Court

    Yes We Can Falsify All Human Speech in Court. https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/25/yes-we-can-falsify-all-human-speech-in-court/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-25 15:43:24 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1264945170262474752

  • Yes We Can Falsify All Human Speech in Court.

    Jan 30, 2020, 10:11 PM We can, and do, falsify all human action in court. The question was, could we falsify all human speech in court. The answer is yes. The usual problem is that someone wants an ideology(political) philosophy (secular theological), or theology (supernatural theological) solution – which is impossible. Because Science (truthful testimony) is falsificationary. As far as I know, P is complete. And there are no false or ir-reciprocal statements that can survive its falsification. That fact that people can’t get their noggins around the fact that all science (testimony) like markets (competition) is falsificationary is a common problem. But it stems from a failure to understand that science is falsificationary, then demanding P, like philosophy, ideology, or religion be justificationary. It’s not. So they criticize P for not being a science on the one hand by false presumption science is justificationary, and then complain P isn’t justificationary. Kind of silly really, but you can see where they get it from. Most people are stuck in the error of “Mathiness” because they don’t grasp the constitution of, or limits of, mathematics. Math breaks down in all three directions: the very small, the very large, and the very-human (cognitive): economics. If you need a positive theology, philosophy, ideology, sophism, or pseudoscience, then I understand the via-positiva is necessary for simple minds. But grownups are not afraid of via-negativa (skepticism), because we know all non trivial non tautological propositions are contingent, because we may always or nearly always, discover some novel parsimony that allows us to reorganize our paradigms for greater consistency, correspondence, coherence, completeness and parsimony than before. Edit

  • Yes We Can Falsify All Human Speech in Court.

    Jan 30, 2020, 10:11 PM We can, and do, falsify all human action in court. The question was, could we falsify all human speech in court. The answer is yes. The usual problem is that someone wants an ideology(political) philosophy (secular theological), or theology (supernatural theological) solution – which is impossible. Because Science (truthful testimony) is falsificationary. As far as I know, P is complete. And there are no false or ir-reciprocal statements that can survive its falsification. That fact that people can’t get their noggins around the fact that all science (testimony) like markets (competition) is falsificationary is a common problem. But it stems from a failure to understand that science is falsificationary, then demanding P, like philosophy, ideology, or religion be justificationary. It’s not. So they criticize P for not being a science on the one hand by false presumption science is justificationary, and then complain P isn’t justificationary. Kind of silly really, but you can see where they get it from. Most people are stuck in the error of “Mathiness” because they don’t grasp the constitution of, or limits of, mathematics. Math breaks down in all three directions: the very small, the very large, and the very-human (cognitive): economics. If you need a positive theology, philosophy, ideology, sophism, or pseudoscience, then I understand the via-positiva is necessary for simple minds. But grownups are not afraid of via-negativa (skepticism), because we know all non trivial non tautological propositions are contingent, because we may always or nearly always, discover some novel parsimony that allows us to reorganize our paradigms for greater consistency, correspondence, coherence, completeness and parsimony than before. Edit

  • I Argue Against Abrahamism

    Jan 31, 2020, 7:28 AM I don’t argue against christian ethics (outcome) – I argue against abrahamism (justification). I want them to be christians. I just don’t want them to argue with me by claiming that their preference for conveying Christian ethics is a truth or a necessity – It’s neither. it’s a good, and a preference. that’s fine. 😉 But theology isn’t true or even close to it. It’s a false and unwarrantable promise to bait you into following christian ethics. I just tell them that christianity when stated in scientific terms is in fact the scientific optimum ethics. The way that they argue it and justify it is rather ridiculous for those of us who are fine with the scientific truth being enough of a reason to act according to christian ethics. If you need different incentives to follow christian ethics that’s just a psychological difference. Otherwise, natural law and Christian ethics are the optimum. Largely, need for faith is a biological bias to empathy (feminine minds); need for theological argument is a biological bias for (weak) male minds. And the lack of need for faith is a biological basis for analytic (male) minds. And given that regardless of sex we almost all share some distribution of masculine and feminine biases. So no matter which reason you choose christianity: emotional faith, authoritarian rational, or scientific acknowledgment, all that matters is that people who AREN’T CHRISTIAN always and everywhere have more questionable (worse) ethics that are incompatible with western civilization.