FOR NEWBIES: WORKFLOW (worth repeating) (FB 1546005070 Timestamp) The way I work is by relating ideas across the spectrum in a series of shorter arguments – because I ‘whittle away’ at the stone so to speak, turning it to view it from different angles, working to gradually expose the figure (truth) below. I try to produce operational definitions in series, and to describe behavior as supply and demand using those series of definitions. Then I attempt to turn the fundamental insight into one or more aphorisms (summaries). Then to create a narrative that explains the topic and its applications. Then to weave these narratives together using the same constant language – this editing is what exhausts me and is why it takes me so long to produce a work. WORKFLOW I work from an outline of the complete scope of human thought. I work through the outline from metaphysics to group competitive strategy. Then I work with (many) sketches on FB. I move most of them to the web site. Then I collect the best of them into what I call ‘short courses’ or collections of posts. Then I take those ‘short courses’ and put them into the book. Then edit it all into an explanation. That’s my workflow. It’s actually painfully methodical. It just doesn’t look like it to the casual observer, because most people are desirous of rushing to judgment whereas i tend to exhaust a topic completely (very) before adding it to the canon. Then refine the network of concepts added to the canon once there. cheers.
Theme: Truth
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1546013376 Timestamp) Um, while I favor nationalism, and I’m definitely against miscegenation, I’m not ‘against’ anyone or any people – I’m against bad and false information, whether it be in genetic, cultural, normative, conceptual, or spoken form. And that’s because the science says that Ethnocentrism, science, truth, sovereignty, and markets, defended under the natural law, produce the optimum evolutionary strategy – and the more intolerant the better.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1546011953 Timestamp) Truth is the most intolerant religion. This is the oath of that religion: A HEATHEN, A CHRISTIAN, AN ARYAN, A WARRIOR, A MAN TRANSCENDENT I am a Heathen if 1) I accept the laws of nature as binding on all of existence; and 2) if I treat nature as sacred and to be contemplated, protected and improved; and 3) I treat the world as something to transform closer to a Garden in whatever ways I can before I die; and 4) if I deny the existence of supreme beings with dominion over the physical laws; and I treat all gods, demigods, heroes, saints, figures of history, and ancestors as characters with whom I may speak to in private contemplation in the hope of gaining wisdom and synchronicity from having done so. And 5) if I participate with others of my society in repetition of oaths, repetition of myths, repetition of festivals, repetition of holidays, and the perpetuation of all of the above to my offspring. And 6) if I leave open that synchronicity appears to exist now and then, and that it may be possible that there is a scientific explanation for it, other than just humans subject to similar stimuli producing similar intuitions and therefore similar ends. As far as I know this is all that is required of me to be a Heathen: the Worship(Appreciation) of Kin, Hearth and Home. I am a christian if I have adopted the teaching of christianity: 1) the eradication of hatred from the human heart. 2) the extension of kinship love to non-kin. 3) the demand for personal acts of charity, 4) the extension of exhaustive forgiveness before punishment, enserfment, enslavement, death, or war. As far as I know, this is all that is required of me to be a Christian. I am an Aryan if 1) I proudly display my excellences so that others seek to achieve or exceed them; 2) I seek competition to constantly test and improve myself so I do not weaken; 3) I swear to speak no insult and demand it; 4) I speak the truth and demand it; 5) I take nothing not paid for and demand it; 6) I grant sovereignty to my kin and demand it; 7) I insure my people regardless of condition, and demand it; and in doing so leave nothing but voluntary markets of cooperation between sovereign men; and to discipline, enserf, enslave, ostracize or kill those who do otherwise; 8) to not show fear or cowardice, abandon my brothers, or retreat, and 9) to die a good death in the service of my kin, my clan, my tribe and my people. As far as I know, this is all that is required of me to be an Aryan. I am a warrior in that 1) we will prepare for war so perfectly that none dare enter it against us. 2) Once we go to war, we do so with joy, with eagerness, and with passion, and without mercy, without constraint, and without remorse; And 3) before ending war, we shall defeat an enemy completely such that no other dares a condition of our enemy, and the memory of the slaughter lives a hundred generations. As far as I know, this is all that is required of me to be a Warrior. As far as I know, if I succeed as a Heathen, as a Christian, as an Aryan, as a Warrior, then I have transcended the animal man, and earned my place among the saints, heroes, demigods, gods, in the memories, histories, and legends of man. And that is the objective of heroes. We leave the rest for ordinary men who are still animals, and not man transcendent.
-
Curt Doolittle shared a link.
(FB 1546176873 Timestamp) AREN’T MOST FAILURES OBVIOUS? The study of failures is more valuable than the study of successes. (note that for some reason Google+ made this list twice. lol ) https://www.cbinsights.com/research/corporate-innovation-product-fails/
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1546126223 Timestamp) The structure of aphorism, and the use of aphorism, is a signal in and of itself. Western Aphorism, Chinese Koan, Scriptural Quote. Science, Reason, and Deceit.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1546205702 Timestamp) Lemme’ tell ya’ somthin’. Somthin’ import’nt. There is a reason Sun Tzu, Machiavelli, Smith/Hume, Nietzsche, and their kind all write what they do: to remind us that those sensibilities we apply at local scale, and that are so useful at local scale, do not scale to international scale. in other words, in every era some thinker must remind the dominant forces, that morality is a local contrivance for utilitarian purposes and not an intrinsic good. And that in order to maintain those utilitarian properties of our local order, some of us, at least the military, judiciary, and monarchy, must never make the mistake that civility is an advantage outside of the polity any more than socialism is an advantage outside of the family, or democracy outside of the neighborhood. That’s my job for this era.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1546200836 Timestamp) A QUOTE: THE PAINFUL TRUTH —“( 1 – The first question upon which all others depend is why not to suicide? One can choose cooperation with the world, conflict and competition with the world, or boycott of the world. Boycott means suicide. This choice is that of personal philosophy. 2 – The second question upon which all others depend is why engage in cooperation rather than boycott, free riding, parasitism, and predation? One can choose cooperation, predation or boycott of others. Boycott means suicide. This question is that of ethics. 3 – The third question is for the group, and one upon which all others depend is why engage in cooperation rather than boycott, or free riding, parasitism, and predation? This question is that of politics. 4 – There is only one reason for the strong not to kill, enslave, or enserf the weak and to take their land, their women and their things. And that is a condition of perfect reciprocity. For it is the only condition more rewarding and lower cost than predation. The fact that reciprocity is mutually beneficial is but an excuse the weak use to grant themselves the illusion of equality with the strong. For the strong it is only a matter of superior returns, not morality. This is the end result of the three questions of life, ethics, and politics. All others are comforting lies. 5 – One BEGS for Liberty by permission. One FORCES sovereignty at the point of a spear, tip of an arrow, blade of a sword, and barrel of a gun. That’s the difference between failed beggars for liberty and successful warriors for sovereignty. Eat The Weak. )”—-
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1546190189 Timestamp) —“So laymen adherents to Propertarianism must accept a good deal of the arguments on faith, not fully appreciating their complexity personally? What steps do you have in place for preventing the formation of a personality cult around you?”– Lisa Outhwaite Exceptional question. But. Um. On “faith” is not the question. They can undrestand the benefits. And if they invest in any degree of learning, like an onion, as their level of investment increases, the rigor of it and explanatory power increases. One does not have ‘faith’ in geometry. One knows of it. One uses it. It works. But how many people know why? One has faith in money because everyone else does, not because they have the faintest idea what it means or is constituted of. I mean, do you know how much I write about money, what is money and what is not? I mean, try to find a person in the banking industry (even the finance industry) that can enumerate the spectrum of money and money substitutes like I do. It’s freaking impossible. So, first, if you notice how hard I work to make it NOT about me, that in and of itself is part of my defense against it. Just as when I manage a company I try to distribute ‘management’ as early and as thoroughly as possible and then let the ‘market’ for talent do its work. Although, we have to understand that some personality is inevitable. Every thinker has this problem. Marx, Lenin, and the Prophets in particular, although Saul of Tarsus was the most excellent in making it NOT about him. So the more analytic the less dependent upon personality and the more narrative and requiring of textual interpretation the more dependent upon personality. So for those two reasons both INTENT and CONTENT I have some protection against personality cults. That said it is the core leadership of the first and second generations that tend to be remembered as well. Why? I mean how many people understand ISLM (keynesian econ) or the money supply? or that populations tend to disequilibrium? Or the constitution? They don’t understand them. They do however live by them. They certainly don’t undrestand democracy or they would have none of it. Most people cannot do statistics but they can at least understand what are good statistical arguments and bad. Most people cannot write law, but they can, with some effort both read law, and find legal advisors. Most people can understand the shorter Aphorisms. That is what you see ‘spreads’. This is how I expect most people to undrestand the work. WHile it has taken me a long time to distill these ideas into a ‘cheat sheet’ (much longer than I’d thought) by writing the book I have taught myself how to do so. This ‘specification’ for the language is comprehensible if logic is comprehensible. Most people will be overwhelmed by the constitution but it is something that can be learned. The history is comprehensible for certain. But EVERYONE can understand the de-financialization of the economy, the depoliticization of the polity, the end of propaganda, half truth, and deceit in the informational commons, and the ending of subsidy to the entertainment industry that is our enemy. Because everyone can understand the benefits even if they can’t understand the logic and grammar of it. Lastly, the hurdle for most people is NOT LEARNING the material, it is in making the choice to INVEST in learning the material, and sustaining that investment in competition with his or her frustration, misunderstandings, and disagreements while learning the material. This is why numbers matter. Because it demonstrates by obvious environmental evidence that the material is worth the investment because of the cognitive and argumentative power it provides them. And if they know people who can do so they will find people to help them WITHOUT study. So the more I make this a movement, and the more thought leaders we have, the more i can distribute it, the more analytic I can make it, the less dependent upon me I can, and we can, make it. Thanks for the good question.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1546188259 Timestamp) —“Intellectual paradigms must surely require a different system of qualification besides functionality?”— Lisa Outhwaite All these tests are either additive (or not subtractive): 1 – True (not false), 2 – Excellent(not faulty), 3 – Actionable (not inactionable), 4 – Good (not-ir-reciprocal), 5 – Beautiful (not ugly). So yes. And this is yet another EXCELLENT example of why I do not use sets or set logic, but series, supply demand, Limits, and multi-dimensionality. No ideal types, Ideals – single dimensional tests of multi dimensional questions are just a convenient way of using aggregation for the purpose of obscurantism, loading, framing, and deceit. I suppose I should harp on the deconflation problem more often and explain why more often, but THREE POINTS TEST A LINE. A line of two points has no test of error. In other words, contrasting by one axis (statement, comparison) is a simple game – and a game too simple for any question of substance. Yet it is the preferred (lowest cost) method of human speech. Which is why we rely on justification (low cost meaning) versus falsification (high cost truth). This is why I consider all speech representable as geometry. And it is how I approach all speech: geometrically.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1546190189 Timestamp) —“So laymen adherents to Propertarianism must accept a good deal of the arguments on faith, not fully appreciating their complexity personally? What steps do you have in place for preventing the formation of a personality cult around you?”– Lisa Outhwaite Exceptional question. But. Um. On “faith” is not the question. They can undrestand the benefits. And if they invest in any degree of learning, like an onion, as their level of investment increases, the rigor of it and explanatory power increases. One does not have ‘faith’ in geometry. One knows of it. One uses it. It works. But how many people know why? One has faith in money because everyone else does, not because they have the faintest idea what it means or is constituted of. I mean, do you know how much I write about money, what is money and what is not? I mean, try to find a person in the banking industry (even the finance industry) that can enumerate the spectrum of money and money substitutes like I do. It’s freaking impossible. So, first, if you notice how hard I work to make it NOT about me, that in and of itself is part of my defense against it. Just as when I manage a company I try to distribute ‘management’ as early and as thoroughly as possible and then let the ‘market’ for talent do its work. Although, we have to understand that some personality is inevitable. Every thinker has this problem. Marx, Lenin, and the Prophets in particular, although Saul of Tarsus was the most excellent in making it NOT about him. So the more analytic the less dependent upon personality and the more narrative and requiring of textual interpretation the more dependent upon personality. So for those two reasons both INTENT and CONTENT I have some protection against personality cults. That said it is the core leadership of the first and second generations that tend to be remembered as well. Why? I mean how many people understand ISLM (keynesian econ) or the money supply? or that populations tend to disequilibrium? Or the constitution? They don’t understand them. They do however live by them. They certainly don’t undrestand democracy or they would have none of it. Most people cannot do statistics but they can at least understand what are good statistical arguments and bad. Most people cannot write law, but they can, with some effort both read law, and find legal advisors. Most people can understand the shorter Aphorisms. That is what you see ‘spreads’. This is how I expect most people to undrestand the work. WHile it has taken me a long time to distill these ideas into a ‘cheat sheet’ (much longer than I’d thought) by writing the book I have taught myself how to do so. This ‘specification’ for the language is comprehensible if logic is comprehensible. Most people will be overwhelmed by the constitution but it is something that can be learned. The history is comprehensible for certain. But EVERYONE can understand the de-financialization of the economy, the depoliticization of the polity, the end of propaganda, half truth, and deceit in the informational commons, and the ending of subsidy to the entertainment industry that is our enemy. Because everyone can understand the benefits even if they can’t understand the logic and grammar of it. Lastly, the hurdle for most people is NOT LEARNING the material, it is in making the choice to INVEST in learning the material, and sustaining that investment in competition with his or her frustration, misunderstandings, and disagreements while learning the material. This is why numbers matter. Because it demonstrates by obvious environmental evidence that the material is worth the investment because of the cognitive and argumentative power it provides them. And if they know people who can do so they will find people to help them WITHOUT study. So the more I make this a movement, and the more thought leaders we have, the more i can distribute it, the more analytic I can make it, the less dependent upon me I can, and we can, make it. Thanks for the good question.