Curt Doolittle

Theme: Truth

  • (Other than ‘philosopher’ we don’t have a name for what I did with P. I’m not su

    (Other than ‘philosopher’ we don’t have a name for what I did with P. I’m not sure philosophy exists any longer as other than a discipline of choice. It’s gone the way of theology. I’m a visionary. Sure. P and Oversing are visionary. So was my prediction of the present. ….

    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-24 20:46:00 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253787296127766528

    Reply addressees: @unfinis06265716

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253786655162540039

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @unfinis06265716 Don’t know who you are but Oversing is what I envisioned and more. Did I build 20M of software for 1M? Yes. Is it internal code quality vs commercial at the moment? Yes. It’s that much again to refactor to commercial? Yes. Is the market now (finally) ready for that platform? Yes.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1253786655162540039

  • I don’t ‘sell’ like a priest or philosopher. I fight as a soldier. I teach men b

    I don’t ‘sell’ like a priest or philosopher.
    I fight as a soldier. I teach men by king of the hill.
    Deny the enemy the field so that they have no choice.
    Eliminate the possibility of compromise
    And conflict that arises when sacrificed.
    Truth knows no compromise or mercy.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-24 19:33:15 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253768987994923009

    Reply addressees: @unfinis06265716

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253765472849297408

  • The Problem

    Apr 9, 2020, 8:29 PM THE PROBLEM [T]he problem for Christianity is that it only has one thing to trade -psychological comfort – or what we call mindfulness – and only half or less of the population is buying it. It doesn’t have ENOUGH to trade for the rest of the population to buy it. Yet christians are desperately trying to sell to a saturated market and in doing so losing market share. Instead what Christians, pagans, heathens, traditionalists, constitutionalists and seculars have to trade is unity against the enemy that would destroy our civilization – christian, pagan, heathen, traditional, constitutionalist, and secular. So sell the the only thing the market will buy: Unity in self defense. Unity in Offense. And Unity in Victory. Because selling monopoly is failing everyone. You can’t have control. You can only preserve our trifunctionalism: the equilibrium of military, legal, and religious -each in defense of the other.

  • The Problem

    Apr 9, 2020, 8:29 PM THE PROBLEM [T]he problem for Christianity is that it only has one thing to trade -psychological comfort – or what we call mindfulness – and only half or less of the population is buying it. It doesn’t have ENOUGH to trade for the rest of the population to buy it. Yet christians are desperately trying to sell to a saturated market and in doing so losing market share. Instead what Christians, pagans, heathens, traditionalists, constitutionalists and seculars have to trade is unity against the enemy that would destroy our civilization – christian, pagan, heathen, traditional, constitutionalist, and secular. So sell the the only thing the market will buy: Unity in self defense. Unity in Offense. And Unity in Victory. Because selling monopoly is failing everyone. You can’t have control. You can only preserve our trifunctionalism: the equilibrium of military, legal, and religious -each in defense of the other.

  • Truth: “Testimony that Satisfies Demand for Infallibility”

    Truth: “Testimony that Satisfies Demand for Infallibility” https://propertarianism.com/2020/04/24/truth-testimony-that-satisfies-demand-for-infallibility/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-24 19:02:36 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253761274942500867

  • Truth: “Testimony that Satisfies Demand for Infallibility”

    TRUTH: “TESTIMONY THAT SATISFIES DEMAND FOR INFALLIBILITY” (complete definition of truth for newbs) WHERE TRUTH CONSISTS IN THE SERIES

    1. Tautological Truth: That testimony you give when promising the equality of two statements using different terms: A circular definition, a statement of equality or a statement of identity.

    2. Analytic Truth: The testimony you give promising the internal consistency of one or more statements used in the construction of a proof in an axiomatic(declarative) system. (a Logical Truth).

    3. Ideal Truth: That testimony (description) you would give, if your knowledge (information) was complete, your language was sufficient, stated without error, cleansed of bias, and absent deceit, within the scope of precision limited to the context of the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possessed of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony. (Ideal Truth = Perfect Parsimony.)

    4. Truthfulness: that testimony (description) you give if your knowledge (information) is incomplete, your language is insufficient, you have performed due diligence in the elimination of error, imaginary content, wishful thinking, bias, fictionalism, and deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and which you warranty to be so; and the promise that another possessed of the knowledge, performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.

    5. Reasonableness: that testimony (description) you give, as justification for your reporting of your belief, justification, preference, coice, or actions with full knowledge that knowledge is incomplete, your language is insufficient, but you have not performed due diligence in the elimination of error and bias, but which you warranty is free of deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possess of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.

    6. Honesty: that testimony (description) you give with full knowledge that knowledge is incomplete, your language is insufficient, but you have not performed due diligence in the elimination of error and bias, but which you warranty is free of deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possess of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.

    WHERE TRUTHFUL SPEECH

    1. Satisfies the Demand for *Increasing Infallibility of Decidability

    GIVEN The Series:

    1. Intelligible: Decidable enough to imagine a conceptual relationship

    2. Reasonable: Decidable enough for me to feel confident that my decision will satisfy my needs, and is not a waste of time, energy, resources.

    3. Actionable: Decidable enough for me to take actions given time, effort, knowledge, resources.

    4. Ethical and Moral: Decidable enough for me to not impose risk or costs upon the interests of others, or cause others to retaliate against me, if they have knowledge of and transparency into my actions.

    5. Normative: Decidable enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion among my fellow people with similar values.

    6. Judicial: Decidable enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion across different peoples with different knowledge, comprehension and values.

    7. Scientific: Decidable regardless of all opinions or perspectives (True)

    8. Logical: Decidable out of physical or logical necessity

    9. Tautological: Decidedly identical in properties (referents) if not references (terms). So to borrow the one of many terms from Economics, we can see in this series (list) a market demand for increasingly infallible decidability.

    WHERE THE SPEECH IS CONSISTS OF:

    1. Complete Sentences
    2. In promissory form
    3. In testimonial form
    4. In operational vocabulary (as actions)
    5. absent the verb to-be (is, are, was, were…)
    6. including all changes in state
    7. including all consequences of change in state
    8. from an observer’s point of view
    9. producing a series of testable transactions.

    WHERE THE CRITERIA FOR TRUTHFUL SPEECH IS: Coherence Across the Dimensions Testifiable by Man, in The Series:

    1. Categorically Consistent (Non-conflationary, Differences)
      Internally Consistent (Logical)

    2. Externally Correspondent (Empirical)

    3. Operationally Consistent (Consisting of Operational Terms that are Repeatable and Testable)

    4. Rational Choice (Consisting of Rational choice, in available time frame)

    5.Reciprocal (Consisting of Reciprocally Rational Choice)

    1. With Stated Limits and Fully Accounted (Defense against cherry picking and inflation)

    2. Warrantied
      … (i)as having performed due diligence in the above dimensions;
      … (ii)where due diligence is sufficient to satisfy the demand for infallibility;
      … (iii)and where one entertains no risk that one cannot perform restitution for.

    AS A DEFENSE AGAINST THE SERIES:

    1. Ignorance and Willful Ignorance;
    2. Error and failure of Due Diligence;
    3. Bias and Wishful Thinking;
    4. And the many Deceits of:
      … (a) Loading and Framing;
      … (b) Suggestion, Obscurantism, and Overloading and Propaganda;
      … (c) Fictionalisms of Sophisms, Pseudorationalisms, Pseudoscience, and Supernaturalism;
      … (d) and outright Fabrications (fictions).

    IN DEFENSE OR ADVOCACY OF: Any transfer that is not reciprocal, the tests of: … (a) productive … (b) fully informed, fully accounted … (c) warrantied and within the limits of liability … (d) voluntary … (e) free of externality of the same criteria INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO The Series of: … (a) murder, … (b) harm, damage, theft, … (c) fraud, fraud by omission, fraud by indirection,baiting into hazard … (d) free riding, socialization of losses, privatization of commons, … (e) rent seeking, monopoly seeking, conspiracy, statism/corporatism, … (f) conversion(religion/pseudoscience), … (g) displacement(immigration/overbreeding), … (ah) conquest (war). === That I know of that, is the most complete definition of truth available. You might think there is some way to outwit it… but you’ll be wrong.

  • Truth: “Testimony that Satisfies Demand for Infallibility”

    TRUTH: “TESTIMONY THAT SATISFIES DEMAND FOR INFALLIBILITY” (complete definition of truth for newbs) WHERE TRUTH CONSISTS IN THE SERIES

    1. Tautological Truth: That testimony you give when promising the equality of two statements using different terms: A circular definition, a statement of equality or a statement of identity.

    2. Analytic Truth: The testimony you give promising the internal consistency of one or more statements used in the construction of a proof in an axiomatic(declarative) system. (a Logical Truth).

    3. Ideal Truth: That testimony (description) you would give, if your knowledge (information) was complete, your language was sufficient, stated without error, cleansed of bias, and absent deceit, within the scope of precision limited to the context of the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possessed of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony. (Ideal Truth = Perfect Parsimony.)

    4. Truthfulness: that testimony (description) you give if your knowledge (information) is incomplete, your language is insufficient, you have performed due diligence in the elimination of error, imaginary content, wishful thinking, bias, fictionalism, and deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and which you warranty to be so; and the promise that another possessed of the knowledge, performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.

    5. Reasonableness: that testimony (description) you give, as justification for your reporting of your belief, justification, preference, coice, or actions with full knowledge that knowledge is incomplete, your language is insufficient, but you have not performed due diligence in the elimination of error and bias, but which you warranty is free of deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possess of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.

    6. Honesty: that testimony (description) you give with full knowledge that knowledge is incomplete, your language is insufficient, but you have not performed due diligence in the elimination of error and bias, but which you warranty is free of deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possess of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.

    WHERE TRUTHFUL SPEECH

    1. Satisfies the Demand for *Increasing Infallibility of Decidability

    GIVEN The Series:

    1. Intelligible: Decidable enough to imagine a conceptual relationship

    2. Reasonable: Decidable enough for me to feel confident that my decision will satisfy my needs, and is not a waste of time, energy, resources.

    3. Actionable: Decidable enough for me to take actions given time, effort, knowledge, resources.

    4. Ethical and Moral: Decidable enough for me to not impose risk or costs upon the interests of others, or cause others to retaliate against me, if they have knowledge of and transparency into my actions.

    5. Normative: Decidable enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion among my fellow people with similar values.

    6. Judicial: Decidable enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion across different peoples with different knowledge, comprehension and values.

    7. Scientific: Decidable regardless of all opinions or perspectives (True)

    8. Logical: Decidable out of physical or logical necessity

    9. Tautological: Decidedly identical in properties (referents) if not references (terms). So to borrow the one of many terms from Economics, we can see in this series (list) a market demand for increasingly infallible decidability.

    WHERE THE SPEECH IS CONSISTS OF:

    1. Complete Sentences
    2. In promissory form
    3. In testimonial form
    4. In operational vocabulary (as actions)
    5. absent the verb to-be (is, are, was, were…)
    6. including all changes in state
    7. including all consequences of change in state
    8. from an observer’s point of view
    9. producing a series of testable transactions.

    WHERE THE CRITERIA FOR TRUTHFUL SPEECH IS: Coherence Across the Dimensions Testifiable by Man, in The Series:

    1. Categorically Consistent (Non-conflationary, Differences)
      Internally Consistent (Logical)

    2. Externally Correspondent (Empirical)

    3. Operationally Consistent (Consisting of Operational Terms that are Repeatable and Testable)

    4. Rational Choice (Consisting of Rational choice, in available time frame)

    5.Reciprocal (Consisting of Reciprocally Rational Choice)

    1. With Stated Limits and Fully Accounted (Defense against cherry picking and inflation)

    2. Warrantied
      … (i)as having performed due diligence in the above dimensions;
      … (ii)where due diligence is sufficient to satisfy the demand for infallibility;
      … (iii)and where one entertains no risk that one cannot perform restitution for.

    AS A DEFENSE AGAINST THE SERIES:

    1. Ignorance and Willful Ignorance;
    2. Error and failure of Due Diligence;
    3. Bias and Wishful Thinking;
    4. And the many Deceits of:
      … (a) Loading and Framing;
      … (b) Suggestion, Obscurantism, and Overloading and Propaganda;
      … (c) Fictionalisms of Sophisms, Pseudorationalisms, Pseudoscience, and Supernaturalism;
      … (d) and outright Fabrications (fictions).

    IN DEFENSE OR ADVOCACY OF: Any transfer that is not reciprocal, the tests of: … (a) productive … (b) fully informed, fully accounted … (c) warrantied and within the limits of liability … (d) voluntary … (e) free of externality of the same criteria INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO The Series of: … (a) murder, … (b) harm, damage, theft, … (c) fraud, fraud by omission, fraud by indirection,baiting into hazard … (d) free riding, socialization of losses, privatization of commons, … (e) rent seeking, monopoly seeking, conspiracy, statism/corporatism, … (f) conversion(religion/pseudoscience), … (g) displacement(immigration/overbreeding), … (ah) conquest (war). === That I know of that, is the most complete definition of truth available. You might think there is some way to outwit it… but you’ll be wrong.

  • What Does Empirical Mean

    What Does Empirical Mean https://propertarianism.com/2020/04/24/what-does-empirical-mean/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-24 19:00:14 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253760681020657665

  • What Does Empirical Mean

    (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

    (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.