Curt Doolittle

Theme: Truth

  • WHAT DOES EMPIRICAL MEAN?

    Apr 10, 2020, 8:22 AM (core) Empirical: Reciprocally Observable, and therefore agreeable, or disagreeable.

    1. Empirical means observable such that claims can be intersubjectively verifiable or falsifiable: meaning the observation can be “agreed or disagreed upon”;

    2. in addition it means a sufficient volume of observations that we falsify the fragility of episodic memories, our tendency to err, our tendency to find patterns that don’t exist, or to bias the results, and to use both to deceive ;

    3. in addition it means using physical instruments of measurement to compensate for the limits of our senses, perception, and the resulting limits to intuition, prediction, and memory;

    4. in addition it means using logical instruments of measurement (testing) of constant, contingent, inconstant, and non-relations to compensate for the limits of our intuition, imagination, prediction, and reason and as such to prevent claims made in ignorance, error, bias, and deceit.

    5. together consisting of tests of reciprocity of information, and the possibility of Agreement or disagreement by reciprocity of information using due diligence in the falsification of sense, perception, intuition, prediction, and claim by RECIPROCAL due diligence using quantity, quality, consistency, causality.

    See the value of operational language? If you have the words for it, most philosophical discourses is rendered nonsense. See how law (competition) differs from philosophy by reduction to reciprocity not the self (philosophical justification). Like I said, in almost all cases philosophical questions are sophisms due to idealism rather than realism – operational language.

  • WHAT DOES EMPIRICAL MEAN?

    Apr 10, 2020, 8:22 AM (core) Empirical: Reciprocally Observable, and therefore agreeable, or disagreeable.

    1. Empirical means observable such that claims can be intersubjectively verifiable or falsifiable: meaning the observation can be “agreed or disagreed upon”;

    2. in addition it means a sufficient volume of observations that we falsify the fragility of episodic memories, our tendency to err, our tendency to find patterns that don’t exist, or to bias the results, and to use both to deceive ;

    3. in addition it means using physical instruments of measurement to compensate for the limits of our senses, perception, and the resulting limits to intuition, prediction, and memory;

    4. in addition it means using logical instruments of measurement (testing) of constant, contingent, inconstant, and non-relations to compensate for the limits of our intuition, imagination, prediction, and reason and as such to prevent claims made in ignorance, error, bias, and deceit.

    5. together consisting of tests of reciprocity of information, and the possibility of Agreement or disagreement by reciprocity of information using due diligence in the falsification of sense, perception, intuition, prediction, and claim by RECIPROCAL due diligence using quantity, quality, consistency, causality.

    See the value of operational language? If you have the words for it, most philosophical discourses is rendered nonsense. See how law (competition) differs from philosophy by reduction to reciprocity not the self (philosophical justification). Like I said, in almost all cases philosophical questions are sophisms due to idealism rather than realism – operational language.

  • “Stupid” reveals itself in the abstracts.

    Apr 10, 2020, 8:01 PM

    Fiction is entertainment. Literature is philosophy in slow motion. philosophy is theology in disguise of literature. science, economics, and law – well, that’s for grownups. Math is for grownups who like to make other grownups feel dumb. 😉   “Stupid” reveals itself in the abstracts.

  • “Stupid” reveals itself in the abstracts.

    Apr 10, 2020, 8:01 PM

    Fiction is entertainment. Literature is philosophy in slow motion. philosophy is theology in disguise of literature. science, economics, and law – well, that’s for grownups. Math is for grownups who like to make other grownups feel dumb. 😉   “Stupid” reveals itself in the abstracts.

  • Q&A: Is The Game Trite? (Yes)

    Apr 14, 2020, 12:31 PM Questions from Francis Zhou

    —“Curt Doolittle, thank you for explaining the way of the world in such simplicity and clarity. As a young man, I was enamored with the power game, and shaped myself to climb the corporate ladder.” —

    Hugs. I find it cathartic to think I can add value to others. 😉

    —“However once I achieve some success in the game, I realized how trite and boring it all appeared to me. At every re-org, the people “in power” strive to hold onto what little power they have by appeasing to those at higher positions. I detested such game and decided to quit playing this power game and focus on my own game instead (to become best at what I do), which probably explains my relatively low position on the corporate ladder. …. And here within lies my confusion: was I wrong to pursue what I thought of as the “righteous path”, and should have continued to play the power game instead? Since even though I detest that game, it does conform to natural law, and thus exist for a good reason. And being in a position of power will allow me to make positive changes, instead of the current state where I am powerless to make those changes?”—

    Wrong? Wrong is the wrong word. 😉 There is nothing wrong with the game once you figure out running a biz is always a team sport. You were unwilling to pay the cost of submission (loyalty, fealty etc) necessary to ladder climb in the team sport – AND – i’m guessing you weren’t able to add sufficient value in your career or position for others to cater to you (my strategy btw). So we all get what we purchase, and you purchased what you did. I don’t see a problem here other than all men should be educated when young so that they make the choice they prefer. So it’s not that you were wrong so much as you didn’t know that used to be traditional knowledge and was not taught you.

    —“I have another question wrt what you said at the end. If I understood you correctly, by “scale is bad” and “reducing power distance restores meaning and eliminates the opportunity for evil,” you meant by “flatten the organization”, therefore making every individual accountable for their contributions, we eliminate the parasitic elite/middle man whose only incentive is to maintain the power economy and extract rent from the system.”—

    Business vs government. I didn’t mean maximize flattening the organization – although that’s always what I do. The point is that as in any other system, to prevent the development of a bureaucracy (middle management) that seeks steady state and efficiency under the presumption of low rates of adaptation, rather than a project business with a general staff (military organization), under the presumption of continuous change. Similar to my recent complaints about education, cdc, who, and government – if an organization isn’t designed to produce projects, and to conduct war games – even such groups as accounting – and if you don’t have a general staff planning war games (scenarios) then you are running your organization whether business, industry, or government incorrectly – under the presumption of regularity and stasis, which does nothing except create opportunity for rent seeking, corruption, and filling all available time with nonsense OTHER than how to adapt to crises. We discovered this in software and manufacturing but it is still taking time working up through through the large industries, the financial sector, and government – which is what we’d expect really. So power distance requires an equilibrium state, as do markets and the law, between too little power distance so that there are no efficiencies of scale, and to much power distance so that rents seeking arises. in government, too small goernment is petty and too large government is corrupt. It’s been common sense for over two thousand years that small governments – probably on the scale of 5 million-10m are about optimum. I mean, Tokyo is a state in and of itself. So is NYC. So we should treat them as such.

    —“Yet as I understood it, humans invented bureaucracy (hence the power economy) as a necessary tool to organize society beyond Dunbar’s number. How will a society filled with millions of short power distance, flat organizations effectively compete with empires organized around huge bureaucracies marshalling overbearing resources within its borders? E.g., collection of states post Blue/Red separation vs single nation state like China; collection of smaller companies with flat org tree vs goliath like Microsoft and Amazon, etc. I have not found the answer after reading all the resources I came into contact with in the Propertarian community. If I missed anything, please point out the gaps.”—

    first, as I said low power distance is not no power distance, and high power distance creates corruption and rent seeking and fragility. So competing is – as in all things – choosing the optimum point of equilibrium between the two extremes of failure.

  • Q&A: Is The Game Trite? (Yes)

    Apr 14, 2020, 12:31 PM Questions from Francis Zhou

    —“Curt Doolittle, thank you for explaining the way of the world in such simplicity and clarity. As a young man, I was enamored with the power game, and shaped myself to climb the corporate ladder.” —

    Hugs. I find it cathartic to think I can add value to others. 😉

    —“However once I achieve some success in the game, I realized how trite and boring it all appeared to me. At every re-org, the people “in power” strive to hold onto what little power they have by appeasing to those at higher positions. I detested such game and decided to quit playing this power game and focus on my own game instead (to become best at what I do), which probably explains my relatively low position on the corporate ladder. …. And here within lies my confusion: was I wrong to pursue what I thought of as the “righteous path”, and should have continued to play the power game instead? Since even though I detest that game, it does conform to natural law, and thus exist for a good reason. And being in a position of power will allow me to make positive changes, instead of the current state where I am powerless to make those changes?”—

    Wrong? Wrong is the wrong word. 😉 There is nothing wrong with the game once you figure out running a biz is always a team sport. You were unwilling to pay the cost of submission (loyalty, fealty etc) necessary to ladder climb in the team sport – AND – i’m guessing you weren’t able to add sufficient value in your career or position for others to cater to you (my strategy btw). So we all get what we purchase, and you purchased what you did. I don’t see a problem here other than all men should be educated when young so that they make the choice they prefer. So it’s not that you were wrong so much as you didn’t know that used to be traditional knowledge and was not taught you.

    —“I have another question wrt what you said at the end. If I understood you correctly, by “scale is bad” and “reducing power distance restores meaning and eliminates the opportunity for evil,” you meant by “flatten the organization”, therefore making every individual accountable for their contributions, we eliminate the parasitic elite/middle man whose only incentive is to maintain the power economy and extract rent from the system.”—

    Business vs government. I didn’t mean maximize flattening the organization – although that’s always what I do. The point is that as in any other system, to prevent the development of a bureaucracy (middle management) that seeks steady state and efficiency under the presumption of low rates of adaptation, rather than a project business with a general staff (military organization), under the presumption of continuous change. Similar to my recent complaints about education, cdc, who, and government – if an organization isn’t designed to produce projects, and to conduct war games – even such groups as accounting – and if you don’t have a general staff planning war games (scenarios) then you are running your organization whether business, industry, or government incorrectly – under the presumption of regularity and stasis, which does nothing except create opportunity for rent seeking, corruption, and filling all available time with nonsense OTHER than how to adapt to crises. We discovered this in software and manufacturing but it is still taking time working up through through the large industries, the financial sector, and government – which is what we’d expect really. So power distance requires an equilibrium state, as do markets and the law, between too little power distance so that there are no efficiencies of scale, and to much power distance so that rents seeking arises. in government, too small goernment is petty and too large government is corrupt. It’s been common sense for over two thousand years that small governments – probably on the scale of 5 million-10m are about optimum. I mean, Tokyo is a state in and of itself. So is NYC. So we should treat them as such.

    —“Yet as I understood it, humans invented bureaucracy (hence the power economy) as a necessary tool to organize society beyond Dunbar’s number. How will a society filled with millions of short power distance, flat organizations effectively compete with empires organized around huge bureaucracies marshalling overbearing resources within its borders? E.g., collection of states post Blue/Red separation vs single nation state like China; collection of smaller companies with flat org tree vs goliath like Microsoft and Amazon, etc. I have not found the answer after reading all the resources I came into contact with in the Propertarian community. If I missed anything, please point out the gaps.”—

    first, as I said low power distance is not no power distance, and high power distance creates corruption and rent seeking and fragility. So competing is – as in all things – choosing the optimum point of equilibrium between the two extremes of failure.

  • Either Way We Have to Outlaw Social Construction by False Promise

    Apr 21, 2020, 12:28 PM (worth repeating) So if (((the))) war on western-sensemaking: our realism, naturalism, operationalism, sovereignty, reciprocity, testimony, commons, and eugenics, is a continuation of their ancient world rebellion against the masculine empires, and an involuntary rebellion against evolution-eugenics. This means if it’s genetic, as it is in our women,it’s irreparable, and separation is the only possibility. If it’s purely cultural (doesn’t appear to be) then it’s a matter of separating from their culture. Either way we have to outlaw it by requiring truthful reciprocal speech. Which is the purpose of my work on the law: to end the repeatedly successful use of abrahamic technique at destroying civilizations from within by false promise, baiting into hazard, selling to vulnerable women and the underclasses, and reversing east and west eugenics.

  • Either Way We Have to Outlaw Social Construction by False Promise

    Apr 21, 2020, 12:28 PM (worth repeating) So if (((the))) war on western-sensemaking: our realism, naturalism, operationalism, sovereignty, reciprocity, testimony, commons, and eugenics, is a continuation of their ancient world rebellion against the masculine empires, and an involuntary rebellion against evolution-eugenics. This means if it’s genetic, as it is in our women,it’s irreparable, and separation is the only possibility. If it’s purely cultural (doesn’t appear to be) then it’s a matter of separating from their culture. Either way we have to outlaw it by requiring truthful reciprocal speech. Which is the purpose of my work on the law: to end the repeatedly successful use of abrahamic technique at destroying civilizations from within by false promise, baiting into hazard, selling to vulnerable women and the underclasses, and reversing east and west eugenics.

  • Disambiguation: “P vs Applied P”

    I see lot of confusion by not separating “P” (the method) from various applications of the P-method. P-Method isn’t like libertarianism, or socialism, or some other political model. By applying P-Method we are trying to reform and restore our civilization. Method vs Application. Science vs Technology, Baking vs Cookies. THE METHODOLOGY 1 – P-Metaphysics (realism, naturalism, operationalism, ….) 2 – P-Epistemology (brain, mind, consciousness, learning, epistemology, acquisition) 3 – P-Method (a method, the completion of the scientific method in a formal operational logic) of testing reciprocity in display word and deed. … a) Disambiguation, serialization, competition (supply demand equilibration, evolution) … b) The Grammars and Table of Grammars … c) The Operational Grammar and Universal Commensurability … … c’) The Specification for Man … d) Reciprocity in Display word and Deed … … d’) The set of definitions in series that result from disambiguating terms of reciprocity. … e) Compatibilism (division of perception, cognition, knowledge and labor) … f) Ternaryism, Tri-Coeercion – Tri-Functionalism … g) Beckerian explanation of social phenomenon using economic analysis APPLIED GENERALLY 4 – P-Method applied to History and Group Strategies 5 – P-Method as an explanation for the strategy and success of western civilization. 6 – P-Law, and Government (applied P to creating governments) and APPLIED SPECIFICALLY 7 – P-New-Constitution for restoration of western civilization. 8 – P-Constitutions for various other civilizations. Which thing are you talking about? If it’s political it’s 7 or 8. Newbies talk about 7-8 all the time. That’s not P. That’s APPLIED-P. P method is the formal logic of psychological and social science, if not all science. P method combines all the philosophical and scientific categories. So when you confuse confuse P-method(explanation) with political preferences (application) it’s the same as confusing science(explanation) with technology(application)

  • Disambiguation: “P vs Applied P”

    I see lot of confusion by not separating “P” (the method) from various applications of the P-method. P-Method isn’t like libertarianism, or socialism, or some other political model. By applying P-Method we are trying to reform and restore our civilization. Method vs Application. Science vs Technology, Baking vs Cookies. THE METHODOLOGY 1 – P-Metaphysics (realism, naturalism, operationalism, ….) 2 – P-Epistemology (brain, mind, consciousness, learning, epistemology, acquisition) 3 – P-Method (a method, the completion of the scientific method in a formal operational logic) of testing reciprocity in display word and deed. … a) Disambiguation, serialization, competition (supply demand equilibration, evolution) … b) The Grammars and Table of Grammars … c) The Operational Grammar and Universal Commensurability … … c’) The Specification for Man … d) Reciprocity in Display word and Deed … … d’) The set of definitions in series that result from disambiguating terms of reciprocity. … e) Compatibilism (division of perception, cognition, knowledge and labor) … f) Ternaryism, Tri-Coeercion – Tri-Functionalism … g) Beckerian explanation of social phenomenon using economic analysis APPLIED GENERALLY 4 – P-Method applied to History and Group Strategies 5 – P-Method as an explanation for the strategy and success of western civilization. 6 – P-Law, and Government (applied P to creating governments) and APPLIED SPECIFICALLY 7 – P-New-Constitution for restoration of western civilization. 8 – P-Constitutions for various other civilizations. Which thing are you talking about? If it’s political it’s 7 or 8. Newbies talk about 7-8 all the time. That’s not P. That’s APPLIED-P. P method is the formal logic of psychological and social science, if not all science. P method combines all the philosophical and scientific categories. So when you confuse confuse P-method(explanation) with political preferences (application) it’s the same as confusing science(explanation) with technology(application)