(FB 1550589901 Timestamp) MORE ON METAPHYSICS ….the idea of ‘proven’ is something I think is meaningless – instead: “remove all reasonable doubt”. Because nothing can be ‘proven’ other than tautologies because nothing is premise-independent other than tautologies. Therefore as far as I know, the question is only one of reasonable doubt. And given that only demonstrated preference shows us what one in fact ‘believes’ rather than ‘signals’ including ‘signaling to the self’, only tests of action with skin in the game tell us – even if we desperately want to be honest – what is in fact ‘true’. Ergo, as far as I know, there is only one physics, and one metaphysics (most parsimonious paradigm) and many false physics(paradigms) and many false metaphysics (paradigms) we can use to describe the physical. And the only metaphysics we can determine we are not signaling (lying) to ourselves and others about is that of ACTION. All else is fiction. Anyway. That’s my understanding.
Theme: Truth
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550691102 Timestamp) YOUR JOB (THE GOOD) VS MY JOB (THE TRUE) Your job is ‘inspiring, good and preferable’, Mine is ‘False, Un-testifiable, and Ir-reciprocal’. Anything that is not false, testifiable, and reciprocal is by definition not open to interference from the law. Your job is the via positiva market for goods, services, and information, and my job is the via negativa market for prosecution of the imposition of costs against the demonstrated interests of others.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550691102 Timestamp) YOUR JOB (THE GOOD) VS MY JOB (THE TRUE) Your job is ‘inspiring, good and preferable’, Mine is ‘False, Un-testifiable, and Ir-reciprocal’. Anything that is not false, testifiable, and reciprocal is by definition not open to interference from the law. Your job is the via positiva market for goods, services, and information, and my job is the via negativa market for prosecution of the imposition of costs against the demonstrated interests of others.
-
(FB 1550687130 Timestamp) —âTEACHING AS TRUE BY LAW RATHER THAN TRUE BY FAIT
(FB 1550687130 Timestamp) —âTEACHING AS TRUE BY LAW RATHER THAN TRUE BY FAITHâ— CLARIFICATION Over the past few weeks I have been trying to find a means of limiting abrahamic means of false promise, baiting into moral hazard, and pilpul and critique, from application outside of christian doctrine, thereby ending the ability to pursue marxism, postmodernism, feminism, denialism and other application of abrahamic persuasion (deceit) in the ongoing war against our people by the globalists (mostly semites and their allies). The solutions were either prohibit, gain compromise, or give compromise, which is the ancient one that faced the romans when attempting to bring the jews into the empire. The ‘give compromise’ is an exchange: “spiritual is true by faith, and material is true by law”. This frustrates both parties a bit but is the only truly reciprocal exchange under the law. And it works for christianity alone because the law also requires compatibility with natural law. Judaism and Islam as well as marxism, postmodernism, feminism, and denialism are not compatible with the law. So the remaining challenge is just to define christianity as some set of existing sects sharing some long standing tradition, limited to compliance with natural law AND the demarcation between the spiritual faith and the material law. I felt it was not possible even to achieve this compromise, so it was better to state the law as the law, and grant christians a specific license under the law. The exchange gives christianity peerage with the law. The exemption gives it permission under the law. And legal scholars will have to debate these things for centuries – because I cannot close the loophole of truthful speech because of the christian demand for identity between truth and myth. So that is where I ended up. To avoid the question by specific license rather than compromising on the question as a difference between faith and law. -Curt
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550783912 Timestamp) WE HAVE AN ANSWER. —“…good men are starving for a real solution…”—Aaron Byrnes And yes, it’s hard to learn. Sorry.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550783583 Timestamp) Young men just like the fact that someone, for maybe the first time, is telling them the truth that they intuit but can’t put into words. That’s the ‘thrill’ of learning P.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550783583 Timestamp) Young men just like the fact that someone, for maybe the first time, is telling them the truth that they intuit but can’t put into words. That’s the ‘thrill’ of learning P.
-
Curt Doolittle shared a post.
(FB 1550774751 Timestamp) POSTED ON HOWE’S SITE Judge for yourself whether Howe is (a)Stupid, (b)Ignorant and Lazy, (c) Intellectually Dishonest, or (d) All of The Above. Compare his definitions of propertarianism, of property, of operationalism, of the means of decidability (testimonialism) and claims made, with posts that are three or more years old. https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10157002703142264 Even worse, his confusion of justificationism (norm, philosophy, religion), with falsificationism (math, science, law) and that P constitutes an instance of law (decidability in matters of conflict) not justification (suggested or consensual behavior) or that he cannot seem to comprehend the difference between theory (search for opportunities) and recipes-actions (operational transformations) – say the theory of smelting vs the means of smelting different metals under different conditions. Or that the purpose of P is force the speaker to demonstrate he has the knowledge that he makes a truth claim in matters of conflict. Or that the Operationalist/Operational/intuitionistic/Praxeological movement resulted in current scientific prose. Or that Eprime is only used to formally criticize operational speech not ‘speak in it’ – in the same way formal logic is only used to formally criticize set statements. I mean… Howe’s criticism is one stupid ignorant lazy arrogant presumptuous statement after another. Ask yourself if it was even vaguely possible to make the above podcast if you had even taken a cursory read of the material, and even a trivial understanding of it. Especially given that we tend to make definitions in series and he doesn’t use a single one. I mean, would you misrepresent the definition of P if it’s on the home page of the site? Would you misrepresent the definition of property and it’s means of construction? Would you misrepresent the operational and ePrime movements by criticism of the personalities of the time, or whether they performed as claimed? I mean, would you? Does the OED contain false definitions because they were written by a man, insane, and in an asylum? Then ask yourself that given that little understanding, that much straw manning, the claim that it’s not personal compared to the gossiping he does at the end whether. And you’ve called my wife, who I met on my second day in Ukraine, a whore and me a sex tourist. And this is because the last time you came after me I did a pretty thorough destruction of apriorism – not that I had to since it’s pretty common knowledge among the educated (even someone like Rand) that this kantian nonsense was just an attempt at secular preservation of authority of the church and state. Yes we are getting popular. In our popularity we are leaving behind people with malinvestments in failed intellectual, economic, and political movements. We might fail in our mission. That said WASTING MY TIME and POLLUTING THE INFORMATIONAL COMMONS with stupid, ignorant, intellectually dishonest pretense does nothing to advance anything except a polluted commons, and to prohibit good people with good intentions, seeking a POSSIBLE solution to the problem of leftist usurpation of propaganda from paying the rather high cost of investing in learning how to do so. Which is precisely what P is designed to do. Dishonest, lazy ignorant, stupid, self interested shills. The world needs fewer of you. You’re just as cancerous to our people as the leftists.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550796209 Timestamp) A BLACK PILL Here is the harder question. What if all knowledge that begins with the scientific revolution – a term which means ‘that which is beyond human scales of ordinary perception’ – is past the means of comprehension of average people, … And (a) it is no longer possible for people to comprehend any of the sciences – and now, with P, even the social sciences. And that (b) the reason for the postwar conquest of our people by Abrahamism version 2 (marxism/postmodernism) is because they cannot tolerate tolerate a world beyond their comprehension and therefore are susceptible to the pseudosciences of marxism, the sophisms of postmodernism, and the pseudoscience and sophism of feminism and outright denialism. In other words, what If, by completing the sciences, including language(metaphysics), psychology, and social science, and by providing a single commensurable language of all sciences, means that without education (training) it is no longer possible for ordinary people to understand ANY OF THE SCIENCES, not just the physical sciences. And so it is not possible to obtain their consent on a constitution of those sciences, only on the policy that results from them – and one’s (my,our, ruling class’s) warranty of those sciences…. So what if we are just recovering to the level of civic development of Roman civilization today and we are repeating the peak. And without harnessing hydrocarbons we would not have surpassed them. And that without rapid and extensive eugenics, humans can never evolved past the limits of those unable to reason beyond human scale of perception. And so devolution is necessary in the present world as it was in the past, and dark ages are going to continue not end. And with each cycle we lose more and more of our hunter-gatherer reserves, until the genome is exhausted and we devolve like the middle east in to ever decreasing genetic ability.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550841555 Timestamp) —“Curt, I don’t hold an objective view of empiricism as, in my understanding the facts are temporary until the community gains further knowledge, which is a long way of saying subjective by my ken. Who do I need to read to understand the objective viewpoint? Am I even wrong in my understanding?”—- Jarrod Marma I cannot quite be sure I’m answering you correctly, but if your statement means that:
- All premises are forever contingent;
- that all theories serve to search for opportunity fields;
- that the application of the theory to transformative action – tests the precision of the opportunity field, and the search;
- and that survival of that application of actions increases the persuasive power of the theory (search and field),
- Cheers
Then yes. But they that’s just the scientific method right? This is the 20th century’s lesson: “Mathiness is a proofy thing and contingency is a truthy thing, and never the two shall meet.” Which has been the curse of mathiness since the greeks. Empiricism doesn’t PROVE anything it ELIMINATES ERROR by compensating for limitations in our perception and cognition. The question is,how do we do we apply those rules to speech ABOUT those theories? And then we need a system of measurement to test it. That system is P’s testimonialism. And when you say “Objective” I assume you mean ‘Operational’ and so yes you will need the “Point of View” in Operational grammar. What I suspect (from my observations of your argument) is that you already praxeologically (operationally) walk through any given model. As such I suspect that you do not need the ‘training’ that Operational speech provides. Op speech is just a completion of praxeology.