Curt Doolittle

Theme: Truth

  • You are correct. I have prevented you from engaging in critique, pilpul, fiction

    You are correct. I have prevented you from engaging in critique, pilpul, fictionalism and deceit. And you are surrendering. I accept your submission. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-21 17:47:37 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1087406375385399296

    Reply addressees: @OctaveFilms @vdare

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1087401259169124354

    IN REPLY TO:

    @OctaveFilms

    @curtdoolittle @vdare Sorry. You are all over the place and impossible to follow.

    Have a nice day.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1087401259169124354

  • You are simply unable to find a hole in my arguments by which to persist a fraud

    You are simply unable to find a hole in my arguments by which to persist a fraud or use gossip, shaming, disapproval, or rallying as substitute for argument. In other words, you’re just a fraud.And this is why I find prosecuting people like you so enjoyable. You’re natural liars.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-21 17:45:21 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1087405803068375047

    Reply addressees: @OctaveFilms @vdare

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1087402010876485632

    IN REPLY TO:

    @OctaveFilms

    @curtdoolittle @vdare I know when language is being used to obfusacte rather than communicate. I tried. Have a nice day

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1087402010876485632

  • You mean you consider free-speech to include false and irreciprocal speech? or a

    You mean you consider free-speech to include false and irreciprocal speech? or as I do (and others like me do) consider free speech free truthful, and reciprocal speech? IN other words you want to preserve the ability for lying and fraud in the commons?

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-21 17:18:02 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1087398930424520704

    Reply addressees: @OctaveFilms @vdare

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1087394641127849985

    IN REPLY TO:

    @OctaveFilms

    @curtdoolittle @vdare So that is a ‘yes’ on curtailing free speech is a victory.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1087394641127849985

  • SEE HOW THEY RUN. SECOND TODAY. Look at how they construct arguments in an attem

    SEE HOW THEY RUN. SECOND TODAY.

    Look at how they construct arguments in an attempt to preserve their comforts.

    —-“You still have to assume a framework for falsifying. If you don’t leave room for questioning said framework, it’s dogma. Is that not clear?”— Ben Quimby

    No it is not clear. logic is not dogma. justificationism is false and falsificationism is not. these are not open questions unless you find a means of opening them by falsifying falsificationism.

    An authority must command a dogma.

    Logic cannot be otherwise.

    Falsification cannot be otherwise.

    You can claim this is false somehow but defensive skepticism is just admission of failure to do so.

    —“To be fair, questioning doesn’t necessarily imply falsifying. Nobody wants to falsify logic, AFAIK; what they want is to “hint”, let’s say (b/c you can’t do this logically), that some truths, like logic itself, are meta-logical.”—Ben Quimby

    —“It’s not admissable, that’s true. And then, if they can’t testify to it, we have to resort to deciding on intent. That’s true. What a weird puzzle. I see both sides. Assuming there are such things as meta-logical truths, this would appear to throw a bit of a wrench in the whole prosecution of non-logical information thing. And you’re naturally worried about being consistent with what gets prosecuted. You can’t even argue that it’s worth sacrificing meta-logical truths, b/c your framework won’t even allow you to acknowledge them as such. And if it did, you might not make that argument. But as someone who can see these “truths”, at least provisionally, the answer here (cost-benefit analysis) is not at all clear to me.”—Ben Quimby

    “Define meta-logical truths”

    (There aren’t any)

    —-“[One can’t coherently define meta-coherence; that comes with the territory.] Take ‘change’ (process) for example. It’s not definable, it’s not falsifiable, and yet we don’t subordinate it to something lesser, like fiction. We acknowledge change as some kind of fact or truth, as something that “just is”, something that “can’t be otherwise”, and yet it hasn’t passed our formalized tests of truth.”— Ben Quimby

    :Meta-coherence” means intuitionistic, free-associations, not open to analysis. (There is nothing not open to analysis, only not open to testing.)

    To define change is very easy. Time=rate of entropy. Change is any perceivable difference in constant relations over time. That is what it means, and that is what it must mean, and that is what we are capable of percieving, because that is the only capacity of our neurons.

    —“Yeah, perception, difference, constancy, relations, time; more meta-analytical terms. They’re meaningful, no doubt; just not in a way we can reference concretely. As for neuronal capacities, I question whether we really know what we mean by that.

    At any rate, the point isn’t to debate this. The point is to test for the ability to step into a separate lens: Can you see what they see without interpreting via your current frame? Hence the “hard problem” question: Do you UNDERSTAND the hard problem as it is seen through the eyes of those who think it’s a valid problem? If you could show something like that, I think it would be extremely powerful.

    I look at things like this: If I can demonstrate comprehension of both my perspective and the other guy’s (on their terms), and they can only demonstrate comprehension of their own, then it’s more likely I hold the superior (more comprehensive) position. Anyways, I’m trying to get away from internet stuff these days. Yesterday was a spur of the moment type thing–a relapse, if you will. It shant happen again. Cheers.”—

    If i can demonstrate both but also the degree of falsity of both it is moel likely that the least false least fictional most parsimonious holds te superior more comprehensive position,

    The hardest part of each major revolution: reason, empiricism, science, darwinianism, and operationalism has been the recalcitrance of those invested in the comforting fictions that they hold dear.

    Testimonialism is a revolutionary as the revolutions in reason, empiricism, science, darwinianism, and operationalism.

    And like those who have malinvested in moralism, malinvested in scripturalism, malinvested in rationalism, the malinvestment is driven out of the market by superior investment.

    -Cheers 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-21 16:02:00 UTC

  • PRACTICE TRAINS THE MIND —“I actually like forcing myself to write operational

    PRACTICE TRAINS THE MIND

    —“I actually like forcing myself to write operationally. Over time, when practicing it, you come to understand what you attempt to say before you say it and then translate it to make it more accurate to what you originally wanted to say. The practice provides people with a great clarity of intention and thought while writing, through close examination of what they want to say, they work to eliminate the obscurity out of their thought and communication, and this demonstrates evidence of the methods power.”— Curtus Maximus

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-21 11:56:00 UTC

  • Good Criticism

    Good criticism. A few things.

    —“He presents as bumbling intellectual, not rabble rouser – he’s barely coherent for most of us let alone capable of inspiring a mob.”–

    Totally agree. Although my behavior as CEO, and as an intellectual consist of very, very different techniques. And I don’t particularly like myself as a CEO, even if I am good at it.

    —“He does, however, have training in people management or is naturally good at it. He knows how to bring men into a fold, how to flatter them and make them feel special or important.”—

    Um. I use the “king of the hill game” method of teaching.

    –“…cult…”—

    I would be the worst possible cult leader. I’ve said all along that ‘leadership will emerge’ (and it does). Because I do not see myself, or want to see myself, as other than a mad scientist of political revolution. If I was a cult leader type I would try to hold all the power myself rather than try to build a cadre of talented people, and train them to go out and be the equivalent of the jesuits and inquisition against the left. It is very hard to see my constitutional reform as anything other than an extremely practical and thorough reformation of the 20th century postwar order and the redistribution of capital to the middle class from the parasitic classes. This occurs in every civilization with relative frequency. We must continually incrementally suppress parasitism – because man continually incrementally invents means of parasitism. Now Picketey would say that this is a natural feature of current capitalism. Pareto would say it is a necessary feature of the production of wealth. Evolution would say that it is merely class rotation. And I would say it is merely a failure to maintain the competition of via negativa law and via positiva markets to continuously incrementally suppress new inventions of parasitism whenever new means of rents are invented. My view, like the georgists, would be that land rents go to the monarchy, and taxation go to the commons.

    —-“It’s not a cult. My use of that word was flippant. A better description would be that the primary motivation, at the initial stage for newcomers is to win favour with the big chief (Curt) and less so commit fully to the ideas. You do however delegate to a considerable degree and, as you say, are more than happy to bring others up than hold onto the power base.”—

    —“You’re also genuinely motivated by good ideas and not ego which is quite rare. My point really was that it’s extremely difficult to eliminate the negative aspects of ‘Alpha-worship’. Corruption of the initial framework, regardless of how well it began, then becomes inevitable as members less capable of handling the ideas defend the position, or territory, more aggressively in order to maintain their position and remain useful. I notice that followers who seem to actually understand the material are less supplicatory, less aggressive to criticisms by outsiders and are generally less sycophantic.”—

    I agree. On the other hand i am very grateful that these devotees prevent GSRRM, defend the brand, and save me the time and effort of self defense. This discourages idiots from wasting my time so that we get better criticisms. The one thing I get from the best people is to not waste time with those who are a waste of time.

  • Good Criticism

    Good criticism. A few things.

    —“He presents as bumbling intellectual, not rabble rouser – he’s barely coherent for most of us let alone capable of inspiring a mob.”–

    Totally agree. Although my behavior as CEO, and as an intellectual consist of very, very different techniques. And I don’t particularly like myself as a CEO, even if I am good at it.

    —“He does, however, have training in people management or is naturally good at it. He knows how to bring men into a fold, how to flatter them and make them feel special or important.”—

    Um. I use the “king of the hill game” method of teaching.

    –“…cult…”—

    I would be the worst possible cult leader. I’ve said all along that ‘leadership will emerge’ (and it does). Because I do not see myself, or want to see myself, as other than a mad scientist of political revolution. If I was a cult leader type I would try to hold all the power myself rather than try to build a cadre of talented people, and train them to go out and be the equivalent of the jesuits and inquisition against the left. It is very hard to see my constitutional reform as anything other than an extremely practical and thorough reformation of the 20th century postwar order and the redistribution of capital to the middle class from the parasitic classes. This occurs in every civilization with relative frequency. We must continually incrementally suppress parasitism – because man continually incrementally invents means of parasitism. Now Picketey would say that this is a natural feature of current capitalism. Pareto would say it is a necessary feature of the production of wealth. Evolution would say that it is merely class rotation. And I would say it is merely a failure to maintain the competition of via negativa law and via positiva markets to continuously incrementally suppress new inventions of parasitism whenever new means of rents are invented. My view, like the georgists, would be that land rents go to the monarchy, and taxation go to the commons.

    —-“It’s not a cult. My use of that word was flippant. A better description would be that the primary motivation, at the initial stage for newcomers is to win favour with the big chief (Curt) and less so commit fully to the ideas. You do however delegate to a considerable degree and, as you say, are more than happy to bring others up than hold onto the power base.”—

    —“You’re also genuinely motivated by good ideas and not ego which is quite rare. My point really was that it’s extremely difficult to eliminate the negative aspects of ‘Alpha-worship’. Corruption of the initial framework, regardless of how well it began, then becomes inevitable as members less capable of handling the ideas defend the position, or territory, more aggressively in order to maintain their position and remain useful. I notice that followers who seem to actually understand the material are less supplicatory, less aggressive to criticisms by outsiders and are generally less sycophantic.”—

    I agree. On the other hand i am very grateful that these devotees prevent GSRRM, defend the brand, and save me the time and effort of self defense. This discourages idiots from wasting my time so that we get better criticisms. The one thing I get from the best people is to not waste time with those who are a waste of time.

  • Good criticism. A few things. —“He presents as bumbling intellectual, not rabb

    Good criticism. A few things.

    —“He presents as bumbling intellectual, not rabble rouser – he’s barely coherent for most of us let alone capable of inspiring a mob.”–

    Totally agree. Although my behavior as CEO, and as an intellectual consist of very, very different techniques. And I don’t particularly like myself as a CEO, even if I am good at it.

    —“He does, however, have training in people management or is naturally good at it. He knows how to bring men into a fold, how to flatter them and make them feel special or important.”—

    Um. I use the “king of the hill game” method of teaching.

    –“…cult…”—

    I would be the worst possible cult leader. I’ve said all along that ‘leadership will emerge’ (and it does). Because I do not see myself, or want to see myself, as other than a mad scientist of political revolution.

    If I was a cult leader type I would try to hold all the power myself rather than try to build a cadre of talented people, and train them to go out and be the equivalent of the jesuits and inquisition against the left.

    It is very hard to see my constitutional reform as anything other than an extremely practical and thorough reformation of the 20th century postwar order and the redistribution of capital to the middle class from the parasitic classes.

    This occurs in every civilization with relative frequency. We must continually incrementally suppress parasitism – because man continually incrementally invents means of parasitism.

    Now picketey would say that this is a natural feature of current capitalism. Pareto would say it is a necessary feature of the production of wealth. Evolution would say that it is merely class rotation. And I would say it is merely a failure to maintain the competition of via negativa law and via positiva markets to continuously incrementally suppress new inventions of parasitism whenever new means of rents are invented.

    My view, like the georgists, would be that land rents go to the monarchy, and taxation go to the commons.

    —-“It’s not a cult. My use of that word was flippant. A better description would be that the primary motivation, at the initial stage for newcomers is to win favour with the big chief (Curt) and less so commit fully to the ideas. You do however delegate to a considerable degree and, as you say, are more than happy to bring others up than hold onto the power base.”—

    —“You’re also genuinely motivated by good ideas and not ego which is quite rare. My point really was that it’s extremely difficult to eliminate the negative aspects of ‘Alpha-worship’. Corruption of the initial framework, regardless of how well it began, then becomes inevitable as members less capable of handling the ideas defend the position, or territory, more aggressively in order to maintain their position and remain useful. I notice that followers who seem to actually understand the material are less supplicatory, less aggressive to criticisms by outsiders and are generally less sycophantic.”—

    I agree. On the other hand i am very grateful that these devotees prevent gsrm, defend the brand, and save me the time and effort of self defense. This discourages idiots from wasting my time so that we get better criticisms.

    the one thing i get from the best people is to not waste time with those who are a waste of time.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-20 14:25:00 UTC

  • “EXHAUSTING” by Rosenborg Predmetsky It’s just as I’d said in a previous post: C

    “EXHAUSTING”

    by Rosenborg Predmetsky

    It’s just as I’d said in a previous post: Curt’s posts can be exhausting to read, but for the exact opposite of why continental philosophy is exhausting to read: The first is exhausting because so much substance is compressed in so little, whereas in continental philosophy, so little is enshrouded by so much.

    by John Mark

    YES. When I found Curt the experience was the opposite of when I tried to read philosophy.

    Philosophy: “There’s got to be something worthwhile in here somewhere.”

    Curt: “OMG I could spend an hour thinking about each paragraph.”

    (CD: these guys made my day. not because of my ego. But because when someone understands, I feel ‘validated’ – because the hard work did some good and I didnt end up just writing to myself. Moreover, it means they are becoming leaders – so I don’t have to… lol. 😉 )

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-20 13:26:00 UTC

  • PROPERTARIANISM FALSIFIES DOGMAS, IDEOLOGIES, PHILOSOPHIES, AND RELIGIONS. (wort

    PROPERTARIANISM FALSIFIES DOGMAS, IDEOLOGIES, PHILOSOPHIES, AND RELIGIONS.

    (worth repeating)

    Dogma requires a via positiva. Science and law are only via-negativas. Like many people, y’all want a religion or a philosophy instead of a science, logic, and law. I don’t do via-positivas like philosophy and religion. I just do via negativa: what is false and immoral. That leaves universes of non-false, non-immoral possibilities. The question is, why do you want false and immoral possibilities?

    Science(actions), logic(words), and mathematics (measurements) are not dogmas. THEY FALSIFY THEM.

    Propertarianism (vitruvianism, acquisitionism, propertarianism, testimonialism, and the algorithmic natural law) is not a religion, a philosophy, or an ideology or a but a science, logic, system of measurement, and body of law – and not a dogma. IT FALSIFIES THEM.

    YOU MIGHT THINK SCIENCE IS A POSITIVA. IT ISN’T. IT’S A NEGATIVA: A MARKET COMPETITION FOR SURVIVAL FROM FALSIFICATION.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-20 12:20:00 UTC