Curt Doolittle

Theme: Truth

  • Q: “How Is P-Law Different from Any Other?”

    (important) (core)

    —“How is P law different than any other law? We have laws now that some people follow and some don’t Any and every law creates division because once laws are made someone has to enforce them. And as long as there are humans involved there will be corruption you cant stop that. There is no perfect system . The best we could hope for is a simple 2 law system, 1) mind your own business and 2) leave everyone else alone. Do whatever you wish as long as you don’t harm anyone else.”— John Lafferty

    GREAT QUESTION Aside from the absolute lack of evidence that the left wants to eave you (your property) alone, and that they instead demand rights to consume your property, and the commons, let’s look at the question of what differs in western law, anglo saxon, english, british, american, and P-law. First, we have laws that exist without a market for enforcement of them. Chief among those limits on us, is the requirement for ‘standing’ before the court in matters of the commons, and the incremental grant of privilege to state officials of insulation from prosecution for their acts. Next, Laws only work the way we wish if (a) there is a market incentive to profit from the prosecution of those who violate it, (b) if they apply to everyone equally, (c) the law is technical and scientific, (d) if the judiciary is an empirical, difficult to enter TECHNICAL professional ‘priesthood’ (high status, high income, low corruption), (e) the military will, in the end, enforce the rulings of the judiciary if it must. P attempts – I think more successfully than in all of history – to both state these factors openly, and produce a constitution that produces each of the requirements above. Among the most important weaknesses of our constitution is that much of the english common law upon which it rests is not stated (Sovereignty). Or for example, why the west uses three priesthoods (juridical negativa, scientific ‘practical’, and priestly positiva) in competition with one another. Yet it is this market vs everyone else’s monopoly that provides not only a division of labor but our unique adaptability. There is evidence throughout history that technical bureaucracies work. The problem with systems of thought is transforming them from customs, to philosophies, to sciences, to formal logics. And that is what P-law does. As for “best we can hope for” – that doesn’t work because humans operate at the minimum morality that they can get away with. Our customary law is extremely ‘complete’ in this regard only because it is predicated on sovereignty of the individual, (every man and his manor is his own country). So quite the opposite. The best we can do doesn’t require ‘hoping’ for anything – it requires we simply create a market for incentives to prosecute those who would violate that sovereignty, law, constitution, and it’s articles, legislation, regulation, and findings of the court. That said, it is a militia of men of shared oath to one another that is the only defense against usurpers. I will give that oath to you if you will give it to me. And that is all that is required.

  • Why Engage in Religious Commentary?

    Feb 7, 2020, 9:44 AM

    —“I’ve been following John Mark for some time now and generally agree with your observations on politics, the media and the way our country is headed and what conservatives need to do about it. However I find you venturing into religious commentary analysis disconcerting especially when it is viewed more as a way of controlling the masses and devoid of any spiritual truth or meaning. This reminds a great deal of the way Karl Marx viewed religion bad “an opiate for the masses.” It worried me also in that you are ignoring the fact this country which you want to save was founded in Christianity, put “In God We Trust” on our money and whose great founders and leaders prayed often and diligently for guidance and wisdom for the course of our country. If you try to turn our country around without a true belief in God you will have not saved this country but perhaps create a different sort of democracy devoid of God and all the foundations that have made this the greatest nation in the world and it will fail miserably. I would hope you will stay out of the theology business that most of the true Patriots of this country believe in and stick to the more obvious analysis of politics and trends in general. Otherwise you can count me and perhaps many others out of your “Winning Right.”—Joel Rhodes

    Going to answer two points you’ve made:

    1) —“I find you venturing into religious commentary analysis disconcerting especially when it is viewed more as a way of controlling the masses and devoid of any spiritual truth or meaning.”—

    My objective is to end the undermining of western civilization by the use of the abrahamic method of deceit, upon which were built the first system of anti-religious-market lies of judaism, christianity, and islam, and the second anti-political-market lies: marxism, postmodernism, feminism – and the continued durability of judaism, christianity, and islam as monopolistic totalitarian religions. So I struggle with reforming christianity so that the teachings of Jesus are retained, but the abrahamic method of deceit by which christianity is justified is removed. At present we must make excuses in the constitution for the preservation of a single method of lying using the abrahamic method of deceit to preserve the good in christianity and the tolerance of the christian center. In other words, the only problem we face today is that christians use the jewish means of lying to justify christian religion, instead of reforming the church so that it is – as we see in some protestant churches – a continuous lesson in psychology(mindfulness) – where jesus’ teaching is the most primitive and effective method of using group therapy to program individuals into mindfuless. the stoic method is not as effective for common people because it is requires intellectual exercise. So it is of its nature a middle and upper class means of mindfuless. Yet evidence says that we can like our ancestors or japan combine multiple traditions to achieve our ends. And that is part of my work To produce a social order free of the abrahamic method of deceit, so that we are no longer vulnerable to the abrahamic method of deceit.

    2) —“you are ignoring the fact this country which you want to save was founded in Christianity”—

    This country was founded by men who were members of the enlightenment, for who god varied – just as today – between (a) a euphemism for the laws of the universe and god the anthropomorphic character we attribute to it, (b) the uninvolved abstract god of deism while maintains that there may be some abstract force we anthropomorphize as god, (c) jesus as a philosopher of speaking in religious prose under one of those gods, (d) jesus as a prophet, and god as existential. (e) full dogmatic fundamentalists who believe everything is determined by god and the bible is the literal word of god. And that, just as I go to church recite words, and just as Jefferson did, that does not mean that those of us who are secular and philosophical are merely performing a ritual for the benefit of all of us across that spectrum, and whose of us who are theological are doing it for the god and prophet for which we hope to benefit ourselves and the polity. So, I’ll give you the opposing theory: that for aristocracy, christianity was an excuse for Aryanism (superiority), and religion is a means of controlling the vast ignorant underclasses. For the priesthood that came from the nobility or middle classes it was a means of earning income from administering a vast illiterate ignorant underclass by false promise and pacifying them. And that by and large – just as postmodernism is practiced by the academy and urbanites and traditionalism by the rurals, through almost all of the dark ages, the church was as corrupt as we know perceive our state, only the city dwellers gave it lip service, and the people were christian only at church, and the rest of the time maintained their traditional germanic paganism. So if you mean ‘the people were ignorant and illiterate farmers and laborers who were administered into christian pacifism and tolerance for one another, and that the aristocracy was always practiced war and law and property just as those of us today with agency and recourses practice property, economic warfare, political warfare, and organize the laboring classes to conduct war” then yes. But do not for a moment confuse the fact that in western civilization, we practice Tripartism intellectually and trifunctionalism institutionally, and that the military, judicial, and theological priesthoods were all present at all times, and we allied with the most important to us at any given moment – just like today. The warning I am giving you is one that only a few thinkers give in each era, with sun tzu and machiavelli the most well known. That is: (a) do not confuse that your primary framework for understanding the organization of western civilization isn’t just a class framework (b) that all three frameworks are always and everywhere present, (c) that what binds them together isn’t any one of the three, but sovereignty, and the three possible methods of coercion force trifunctionalism, which forces tripartism. We are all european if and only if we are the people of who use markets in everything – and this is why the church failed here and only succeeded in the (underclass) middle east – almost everyone was at the bottom, and so religion brought them there. In the west we have classes and we move between them as needed.

  • Why Engage in Religious Commentary?

    Feb 7, 2020, 9:44 AM

    —“I’ve been following John Mark for some time now and generally agree with your observations on politics, the media and the way our country is headed and what conservatives need to do about it. However I find you venturing into religious commentary analysis disconcerting especially when it is viewed more as a way of controlling the masses and devoid of any spiritual truth or meaning. This reminds a great deal of the way Karl Marx viewed religion bad “an opiate for the masses.” It worried me also in that you are ignoring the fact this country which you want to save was founded in Christianity, put “In God We Trust” on our money and whose great founders and leaders prayed often and diligently for guidance and wisdom for the course of our country. If you try to turn our country around without a true belief in God you will have not saved this country but perhaps create a different sort of democracy devoid of God and all the foundations that have made this the greatest nation in the world and it will fail miserably. I would hope you will stay out of the theology business that most of the true Patriots of this country believe in and stick to the more obvious analysis of politics and trends in general. Otherwise you can count me and perhaps many others out of your “Winning Right.”—Joel Rhodes

    Going to answer two points you’ve made:

    1) —“I find you venturing into religious commentary analysis disconcerting especially when it is viewed more as a way of controlling the masses and devoid of any spiritual truth or meaning.”—

    My objective is to end the undermining of western civilization by the use of the abrahamic method of deceit, upon which were built the first system of anti-religious-market lies of judaism, christianity, and islam, and the second anti-political-market lies: marxism, postmodernism, feminism – and the continued durability of judaism, christianity, and islam as monopolistic totalitarian religions. So I struggle with reforming christianity so that the teachings of Jesus are retained, but the abrahamic method of deceit by which christianity is justified is removed. At present we must make excuses in the constitution for the preservation of a single method of lying using the abrahamic method of deceit to preserve the good in christianity and the tolerance of the christian center. In other words, the only problem we face today is that christians use the jewish means of lying to justify christian religion, instead of reforming the church so that it is – as we see in some protestant churches – a continuous lesson in psychology(mindfulness) – where jesus’ teaching is the most primitive and effective method of using group therapy to program individuals into mindfuless. the stoic method is not as effective for common people because it is requires intellectual exercise. So it is of its nature a middle and upper class means of mindfuless. Yet evidence says that we can like our ancestors or japan combine multiple traditions to achieve our ends. And that is part of my work To produce a social order free of the abrahamic method of deceit, so that we are no longer vulnerable to the abrahamic method of deceit.

    2) —“you are ignoring the fact this country which you want to save was founded in Christianity”—

    This country was founded by men who were members of the enlightenment, for who god varied – just as today – between (a) a euphemism for the laws of the universe and god the anthropomorphic character we attribute to it, (b) the uninvolved abstract god of deism while maintains that there may be some abstract force we anthropomorphize as god, (c) jesus as a philosopher of speaking in religious prose under one of those gods, (d) jesus as a prophet, and god as existential. (e) full dogmatic fundamentalists who believe everything is determined by god and the bible is the literal word of god. And that, just as I go to church recite words, and just as Jefferson did, that does not mean that those of us who are secular and philosophical are merely performing a ritual for the benefit of all of us across that spectrum, and whose of us who are theological are doing it for the god and prophet for which we hope to benefit ourselves and the polity. So, I’ll give you the opposing theory: that for aristocracy, christianity was an excuse for Aryanism (superiority), and religion is a means of controlling the vast ignorant underclasses. For the priesthood that came from the nobility or middle classes it was a means of earning income from administering a vast illiterate ignorant underclass by false promise and pacifying them. And that by and large – just as postmodernism is practiced by the academy and urbanites and traditionalism by the rurals, through almost all of the dark ages, the church was as corrupt as we know perceive our state, only the city dwellers gave it lip service, and the people were christian only at church, and the rest of the time maintained their traditional germanic paganism. So if you mean ‘the people were ignorant and illiterate farmers and laborers who were administered into christian pacifism and tolerance for one another, and that the aristocracy was always practiced war and law and property just as those of us today with agency and recourses practice property, economic warfare, political warfare, and organize the laboring classes to conduct war” then yes. But do not for a moment confuse the fact that in western civilization, we practice Tripartism intellectually and trifunctionalism institutionally, and that the military, judicial, and theological priesthoods were all present at all times, and we allied with the most important to us at any given moment – just like today. The warning I am giving you is one that only a few thinkers give in each era, with sun tzu and machiavelli the most well known. That is: (a) do not confuse that your primary framework for understanding the organization of western civilization isn’t just a class framework (b) that all three frameworks are always and everywhere present, (c) that what binds them together isn’t any one of the three, but sovereignty, and the three possible methods of coercion force trifunctionalism, which forces tripartism. We are all european if and only if we are the people of who use markets in everything – and this is why the church failed here and only succeeded in the (underclass) middle east – almost everyone was at the bottom, and so religion brought them there. In the west we have classes and we move between them as needed.

  • The Explanatory Power Is There.

    Feb 7, 2020, 11:28 AM Scott – I don’t understand your post. My work completes the falsificationary method making possible the test of possibility of testimony under performative (deflationary) truth. Popper wasn’t able to get that far. He was partly correct in parsimony but couldn’t define it without market competition. He correctly stated that in the absence of omniscience we can only claim truthfulness not ideal truth. He confused verisimilitude with competing markets. He had no empirical evidence of decidability for scientific exploration although it appears cost determines it. Kuhn’s correctly converts to markets for paradigms increasing the scale from the individual to the network. He poorly articulates but correctly articulates that the explanatory power of networks reach limits as do all economic organizations, thereby exhausting opportunity for explanatory power, which leads to punctuated equilibrium (as in biology). Wilson suggests that underneath all of these similarities is a universal rule of all sciences (which I think my work provides the structure of). Kuhn fails to identify that operational vocabulary evolves semantic incommensurability to semantic commensurability, the same way that paradigms evolve. So, the progress from aristotle to newton to einstein to Planck-Pauli-heisenberg-shrodinger (and the current regression seeded by bohr) is merely the evolution of special cases to general cases. In kuhn’s second attempt he also failed to solve the incommensurability problem for the same reason popper was stuck with scale – failing to grasp that logic is falsificationary and only justificationary in special cases, and that deduction is just another means of free association by which we identify candidates. of course there is much more that can be said but the point is that there is no such thing as proof of anything other than internal consistency of claims. Otherwise the only closure is demonstration. In other words, science is indifferent from legal adversarial contest (market) – and that is why europeans invented reason, empiricism, and science: the application european traditional law of sovereigns, in adversarial competition before the market, dependent upon evidence and testimony where testimony must be observable, and actions possible, under realism and naturalism and human incentives for action under bounded rationality. As such science consists in testifying to any claims by the continued application of testimony and evidence, ever converging through adversarial competition to increasingly parsimonious vocabulary and increasingly commensurable paradigms, u How one conducts scientific investigation is merely a craft like any other. What demarcates science from non-science is the testifiabilty of the claims made. As such all science like all testimony is merely a market falsification leaving only (a) undecidability due to insufficiency, (b) a truth candidate (Truthful Speech) with permanently open falsifiability, and (c) falsified. So when I say “I discovered truth” I discovered the completion of methodology for falsifying claims, and used that discovery to produce a value neutral language across all disciplines, and most importantly the value neutral language of explaining all language regardless of discipline. The reason we know I’m correct is it’s explanatory power at present appears limitless. We even have a table of grammars that cover the spectrum from deflationary (logics) to ordinary, to inflationary (storytelling) to fictionalisms (pseudoscience, idealism, and theology), to the deceits. So we have ‘periodic table of speech’. And once you see it, you can’t unsee it. The explanatory power is there. On average it takes about six months for those with some legal, some economic, some scientific, and some software backgrounds to understand, and about two to four years to put into practice like any other technical discipline. It’s not like you’re going to find holes in it without quite a bit of time. And even if you spent the time we tend not to find holes only to increase precision. Cheers

  • The Explanatory Power Is There.

    Feb 7, 2020, 11:28 AM Scott – I don’t understand your post. My work completes the falsificationary method making possible the test of possibility of testimony under performative (deflationary) truth. Popper wasn’t able to get that far. He was partly correct in parsimony but couldn’t define it without market competition. He correctly stated that in the absence of omniscience we can only claim truthfulness not ideal truth. He confused verisimilitude with competing markets. He had no empirical evidence of decidability for scientific exploration although it appears cost determines it. Kuhn’s correctly converts to markets for paradigms increasing the scale from the individual to the network. He poorly articulates but correctly articulates that the explanatory power of networks reach limits as do all economic organizations, thereby exhausting opportunity for explanatory power, which leads to punctuated equilibrium (as in biology). Wilson suggests that underneath all of these similarities is a universal rule of all sciences (which I think my work provides the structure of). Kuhn fails to identify that operational vocabulary evolves semantic incommensurability to semantic commensurability, the same way that paradigms evolve. So, the progress from aristotle to newton to einstein to Planck-Pauli-heisenberg-shrodinger (and the current regression seeded by bohr) is merely the evolution of special cases to general cases. In kuhn’s second attempt he also failed to solve the incommensurability problem for the same reason popper was stuck with scale – failing to grasp that logic is falsificationary and only justificationary in special cases, and that deduction is just another means of free association by which we identify candidates. of course there is much more that can be said but the point is that there is no such thing as proof of anything other than internal consistency of claims. Otherwise the only closure is demonstration. In other words, science is indifferent from legal adversarial contest (market) – and that is why europeans invented reason, empiricism, and science: the application european traditional law of sovereigns, in adversarial competition before the market, dependent upon evidence and testimony where testimony must be observable, and actions possible, under realism and naturalism and human incentives for action under bounded rationality. As such science consists in testifying to any claims by the continued application of testimony and evidence, ever converging through adversarial competition to increasingly parsimonious vocabulary and increasingly commensurable paradigms, u How one conducts scientific investigation is merely a craft like any other. What demarcates science from non-science is the testifiabilty of the claims made. As such all science like all testimony is merely a market falsification leaving only (a) undecidability due to insufficiency, (b) a truth candidate (Truthful Speech) with permanently open falsifiability, and (c) falsified. So when I say “I discovered truth” I discovered the completion of methodology for falsifying claims, and used that discovery to produce a value neutral language across all disciplines, and most importantly the value neutral language of explaining all language regardless of discipline. The reason we know I’m correct is it’s explanatory power at present appears limitless. We even have a table of grammars that cover the spectrum from deflationary (logics) to ordinary, to inflationary (storytelling) to fictionalisms (pseudoscience, idealism, and theology), to the deceits. So we have ‘periodic table of speech’. And once you see it, you can’t unsee it. The explanatory power is there. On average it takes about six months for those with some legal, some economic, some scientific, and some software backgrounds to understand, and about two to four years to put into practice like any other technical discipline. It’s not like you’re going to find holes in it without quite a bit of time. And even if you spent the time we tend not to find holes only to increase precision. Cheers

  • Are the Logics Falsificationary or Justificationary in Precedence?

    Feb 8, 2020, 1:18 PM Given the Human logical facility Given the Human grammatical facility Given the Logics of free association(justification), the logics of language (internal consistency – inference), and operational logic (existential possibility – demonstrated); Given possibilities for decidability of nonsensical, undecidable, sufficient for action, truth candidate, tautology, falsehood. Are the logics falsificationary or justificationary in precedence?

  • Are the Logics Falsificationary or Justificationary in Precedence?

    Feb 8, 2020, 1:18 PM Given the Human logical facility Given the Human grammatical facility Given the Logics of free association(justification), the logics of language (internal consistency – inference), and operational logic (existential possibility – demonstrated); Given possibilities for decidability of nonsensical, undecidable, sufficient for action, truth candidate, tautology, falsehood. Are the logics falsificationary or justificationary in precedence?

  • Eliminating the Verb to Be (copula). Is It Required?

    Feb 8, 2020, 6:54 PM

    —“Is failure to use ePrime in P an error? Why/not?”—Jonathan Besler

    Brandon Hayes: No; you can speak truthfully without speaking operationally. Curt Doolittle: Also. You can falsify another’s speech by translating it to operational prose. Again, like many things, once you learn the form you will identify when people are lying, and how they are lying, and gain the ability to explain how they are lying – including why they might be. And if someone questions the truth of your statements you can expand them to the fully operational form and demonstrate that you were merely exercising convenience. Just recall that lying in P means you failed due diligence – you don’t need to intend to. Its like transferring stolen property. You were involved and participated in the crime because you failed due diligence. Edit

  • Eliminating the Verb to Be (copula). Is It Required?

    Feb 8, 2020, 6:54 PM

    —“Is failure to use ePrime in P an error? Why/not?”—Jonathan Besler

    Brandon Hayes: No; you can speak truthfully without speaking operationally. Curt Doolittle: Also. You can falsify another’s speech by translating it to operational prose. Again, like many things, once you learn the form you will identify when people are lying, and how they are lying, and gain the ability to explain how they are lying – including why they might be. And if someone questions the truth of your statements you can expand them to the fully operational form and demonstrate that you were merely exercising convenience. Just recall that lying in P means you failed due diligence – you don’t need to intend to. Its like transferring stolen property. You were involved and participated in the crime because you failed due diligence. Edit

  • Improving Parsimony of The Claim that All Theories Are Eventually Falsified

    Feb 11, 2020, 12:19 PM Better way of saying it. There is one most parsimonious paradigm (We call it science. Now I call it ‘P’ or ‘testimony’).

    —“All paradigms are eventually false. :)”—

    That’s demonstrably false. Instead, we increasingly identify limits that cause us to increase the parsimony of our theories. All scientific paradigms appear increase in parsimony. Aristotle, Newton, and Einstein all evolve to greater precision. Take Humors (disease) and Phlogiston theory (chemistry), Einstein’s static universe(cosmology), or the expanding earth (plate tectonics). They were false but they were progress in the right direction. Conversely there are three categories that always fail to increase in parsimony: 1) Magic -> Pseudoscience (action-physical) 2) Idealism -> Philosophy (verbal-rational) 3) Occult -> Theology (emotional-intuitionistic) So we have deflationary grammars of 1) Science, 2) Logic, and 3) Mathematics that all increase in parsimony. And we have inflationary grammars of 1) magic(physical), 2) idealism(verbal), and 3) the occult(emotional) that fail all tests of parsimony. Of course we also have the outright deceits too.