Curt Doolittle

Theme: Truth

  • My Very Simple Scientific Technique and What I Have Learned from Religion

    October 23rd, 2018 6:54 AM MY VERY SIMPLE SCIENTIFIC TECHNIQUE AND WHAT I HAVE LEARNED FROM RELIGION [R]eligion is, surprisingly, the ‘hard problem’ of social science. Every other problem I have set out to solve (understand) has been trivial by comparison. Truth took me a year. The grammars took me less than six months. And those are very hard problems. Religion was much harder. I use a very simple (scientific) technique, that long-term followers know well, which is to attack a problem, causing other people to defend it, until I understand their incentives. This is a better method of research than reading what other authors opine (make excuses for or against.) I am trying to understand (better than I do now) why the the demand for the God (bad) and Jesus (good) mythos’ (they are different) persists among some people and groups and not others. I have begun to understand it better than I did. I understand (easily) why certain classes demand it. I have begun to understand the different weights different cultures attach to it. And I am ‘testing’ whether (I think correctly) it is simply a failure to provide mindfulness by non-nonsense means (and why governments would resist teaching a non-nonsense method of mindfulness). Mostly what I have come to understand, is that people are ignorant of the available options and their intuitions have been so successfully trained by the one they already hold, that they cannot imagine training their intuitions by any other means. So (a) man needs mindfulness, and (b) and man needs mindfulness to different degrees, and (c) the mindfulness is dependent a bit on genetics of mindfulness (males less than females in general, and females more in general), (d) personality needs, (e) class circumstances, (f) cultural-political circumstances – all of which generate (or do not generate) demand for mindfulness. Now, that mindfulness can be provided by the Hindu Means (literary immersion), the three abrahamic monotheistic means (organized indoctrination) of low(islam), working(christian), and middle (jewish) religion; the buddhist means (training); the rather ‘new age/european’ (philosophy-as-religion-substitute) means; the shinto and ritual means (ritual); or by cognitive-behavioral education that we call ‘Stoicism’ for context. And there is a great deal to lean just from the ORDER of those methods of training: how much infrastructure is needed to preserve the ‘illusion’ of the mythos vs argument vs ritual vs education. And how much ‘ability’ given the means of training (immersion in hinduism through individual education in stoicism). But this is just a matter of WEALTH sufficient to pay for the means of TRAINING vs a given period of time: ie: producing the mass illusions of the ancient religions required an informational vulnerability (absence of knowledge and alternatives) that existed only in the past – and no longer does. So if one wants to produce a religion that is not made of lies, it is entirely possible to do so – with a total absence of religious parables. And instead, a reliance on parables of history, and training in the virtues. Christianity has a very simple set of underlying principles that are constituted in only four statements. Islam and judaism can also be, but to do so is horrifying. Christianity’s four statements are quite simple and will in general produce consequent goods. There is just no need to lie to people and train them to be vulnerable to lies, and train priests to lie, and politicians to lie by the same means in order to teach those four rules. No more lies by judaism, devolves into christianity, devolves into islam, evolves into marxism, postmodernism, feminism. No more lies. People need “imaginary friends, parents, leaders” for very well underst reasons: they have been failed by those around them, to provide positive socialization and training by existential means. We are able to teach truthful speech (science) and there is no reason we cannot provide positive socialization and training (mindfulness) by equally truthful means. Convergence on the Truth: continuous correspondence between reality perception cognition recollection description negotiation, and advocacy. Affections. -Curt

  • A Hard Concept to Internalize: Via-Negativa Lying

    October 23rd, 2018 10:08 AM A HARD CONCEPT TO INTERNALIZE: VIA-NEGATIVA LYING [S]cience and Law are via-negativa disciplines. We know truth by eliminating what is false. We know legal, ethical, moral, and good, by eliminating what is irreciprocal, unethical, immoral, criminal, and bad. Science is the means by which we perform due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, suggestion, fictionalism, and deceit – leaving only truth candidates remaining. So, when we say someone is LYING it does not require that they via-positiva relied upon intent. Instead, we require via-negativa, that we take involuntary responsibility for performing due diligence against spreading a falsehood suggestion or deceit. So via-negativa, someone is lying if they distribute a falsehood suggestion or deceit, regardless of whether they intend to. This is a higher standard of suppression of falsehood – one that is necessary to prevent the spread of falsehoods. Because we have been defeated once by the falsehood of monotheism, and the same people are trying to defeat us with mono-classism, and monopoly. We are the only people to create a market between classes and ideas, and everyone else produced a monopoly equalitarianism, or a monopoly hierarchy, rather than the markets that have made our successes possible. People always resist paying the costs of incremental increases in suppression of opportunity for free riding, conspiracy, deception, fraud, theft and violence, just as they resist paying all costs of creating and maintaining the commons: physical, normative, and informational. That does not mean that we are always and everywhere paying those costs in exchange for the most valuable commons we can produce: good information, truthful speech, the trust, economic velocity, and innovation that results from it. Because the only way a small, high-individual-investment, superior population can compete is by producing the economy necessary to pay for the superior technological means ( and arms) by which to compensate for their numbers. Cheers. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • My Very Simple Scientific Technique and What I Have Learned from Religion

    October 23rd, 2018 6:54 AM MY VERY SIMPLE SCIENTIFIC TECHNIQUE AND WHAT I HAVE LEARNED FROM RELIGION [R]eligion is, surprisingly, the ‘hard problem’ of social science. Every other problem I have set out to solve (understand) has been trivial by comparison. Truth took me a year. The grammars took me less than six months. And those are very hard problems. Religion was much harder. I use a very simple (scientific) technique, that long-term followers know well, which is to attack a problem, causing other people to defend it, until I understand their incentives. This is a better method of research than reading what other authors opine (make excuses for or against.) I am trying to understand (better than I do now) why the the demand for the God (bad) and Jesus (good) mythos’ (they are different) persists among some people and groups and not others. I have begun to understand it better than I did. I understand (easily) why certain classes demand it. I have begun to understand the different weights different cultures attach to it. And I am ‘testing’ whether (I think correctly) it is simply a failure to provide mindfulness by non-nonsense means (and why governments would resist teaching a non-nonsense method of mindfulness). Mostly what I have come to understand, is that people are ignorant of the available options and their intuitions have been so successfully trained by the one they already hold, that they cannot imagine training their intuitions by any other means. So (a) man needs mindfulness, and (b) and man needs mindfulness to different degrees, and (c) the mindfulness is dependent a bit on genetics of mindfulness (males less than females in general, and females more in general), (d) personality needs, (e) class circumstances, (f) cultural-political circumstances – all of which generate (or do not generate) demand for mindfulness. Now, that mindfulness can be provided by the Hindu Means (literary immersion), the three abrahamic monotheistic means (organized indoctrination) of low(islam), working(christian), and middle (jewish) religion; the buddhist means (training); the rather ‘new age/european’ (philosophy-as-religion-substitute) means; the shinto and ritual means (ritual); or by cognitive-behavioral education that we call ‘Stoicism’ for context. And there is a great deal to lean just from the ORDER of those methods of training: how much infrastructure is needed to preserve the ‘illusion’ of the mythos vs argument vs ritual vs education. And how much ‘ability’ given the means of training (immersion in hinduism through individual education in stoicism). But this is just a matter of WEALTH sufficient to pay for the means of TRAINING vs a given period of time: ie: producing the mass illusions of the ancient religions required an informational vulnerability (absence of knowledge and alternatives) that existed only in the past – and no longer does. So if one wants to produce a religion that is not made of lies, it is entirely possible to do so – with a total absence of religious parables. And instead, a reliance on parables of history, and training in the virtues. Christianity has a very simple set of underlying principles that are constituted in only four statements. Islam and judaism can also be, but to do so is horrifying. Christianity’s four statements are quite simple and will in general produce consequent goods. There is just no need to lie to people and train them to be vulnerable to lies, and train priests to lie, and politicians to lie by the same means in order to teach those four rules. No more lies by judaism, devolves into christianity, devolves into islam, evolves into marxism, postmodernism, feminism. No more lies. People need “imaginary friends, parents, leaders” for very well underst reasons: they have been failed by those around them, to provide positive socialization and training by existential means. We are able to teach truthful speech (science) and there is no reason we cannot provide positive socialization and training (mindfulness) by equally truthful means. Convergence on the Truth: continuous correspondence between reality perception cognition recollection description negotiation, and advocacy. Affections. -Curt

  • A HARD CONCEPT TO INTERNALIZE: VIA-NEGATIVA LYING Science and Law are via-negati

    A HARD CONCEPT TO INTERNALIZE: VIA-NEGATIVA LYING

    Science and Law are via-negativa disciplines. We know truth by eliminating what is false. We know legal, ethical, moral, and good, by eliminating what is irreciprocal, unethical, immoral, criminal, and bad. Science is the means by which we perform due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, suggestion, fictionalism, and deceit – leaving only truth candidates remaining.

    So, when we say someone is LYING it does not require that they via-positiva relied upon intent. Instead, we require via-negativa, that we take involuntary responsibility for performing due diligence against spreading a falsehood suggestion or deceit. So via-negativa, someone is lying if they distribute a falsehood suggestion or deceit, regardless of whether they intend to.

    This is a higher standard of suppression of falsehood – one that is necessary to prevent the spread of falsehoods. Because we have been defeated once by the falsehood of monotheism, and the same people are trying to defeat us with mono-classism, and monopoly. We are the only people to create a market between classes and ideas, and everyone else produced a monopoly equalitarianism, or a monopoly hierarchy, rather than the markets that have made our successes possible.

    People always resist paying the costs of incremental increases in suppression of opportunity for free riding, conspiracy, deception, fraud, theft and violence, just as they resist paying all costs of creating and maintaining the commons: physical, normative, and informational.

    That does not mean that we are always and everywhere paying those costs in exchange for the most valuable commons we can produce: good information, truthful speech, the trust, economic velocity, and innovation that results from it.

    Because the only way a small, high-individual-investment, superior population can compete is by producing the economy necessary to pay for the superior technological means ( and arms) by which to compensate for their numbers.

    Cheers.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-23 10:08:00 UTC

  • Q: How Can I Learn About Propertarianism or Natural Law?

    October 22nd, 2018 11:44 AM Q: HOW CAN I LEARN ABOUT PROPERTARIANISM OR NATURAL LAW?

    —“I’m interested in learning about your stance on propertarianism. So, how do you define the natural law? It’s something I’ve been searching and curious about for some time. And how does Propertarianism relate to this? In fact, I’m curious about the whole thing to be honest”— A Friend

    1 – FIRST QUESTION: WHAT IS NATURAL LAW? What is Natural Law? Reciprocity. propertarianism.com/2018/07/13/what-is-natural-law-what-is-reciprocity/ For Christians, Natural Law in Your Context. propertarianism.com/2018/07/13/natural-law-for-christians/ Natural Law Results in Market “Fascism”. propertarianism.com/2018/07/17/natural-law-facism-market-fascism/ West Developed Natural Law To Profit From Domestication of Man (Eugenics). propertarianism.com/2018/06/27/natural-law-of-sovereign-men-domesticating-animal-man-for-peers-and-profit/ Is Natural Law a Cult? (a Cult of The Law?) (it’s a cult of sovereignty) propertarianism.com/2018/06/16/is-natural-law-a-cult/ It’s Natural Law “Fundamentalism” (“The White Law”) propertarianism.com/2018/05/13/natural-law-fundamentalism/ It’s a Cult of Sovereignty Enforced by Law propertarianism.com/2018/04/14/the-cult-of-sovereignty-natural-law/ Why I Write Natural Law and Science Not Philosophy propertarianism.com/2018/02/25/why-i-write-natural-law-science-not-philosophy-choice/ Each of those posts is pretty short. Read in order, you’ll mostly ‘get’ it. Sometimes you have to read through those posts a few times. But it’s not that hard. You will understand. 2 – SECOND QUESTION: How does propertarianism relate to natural law? It’s the application of natural law to all fields of inquiry (the scope of human knowledge). The scope of work would better be named “The Natural Law of Sovereign Men“, or just “Natural Law“. However, I solved ‘ethics’ first, and the name for that ethics is ‘propertarianism’. So we ‘stuck with propertarianism’ simply because of name recognition. The Scope of Propertarianism (or whatever you choose to call it: “Natural Law“, or “Natural Law of Sovereign Men“, or “The White Law” or the “Philosophy of Western Civilization” ): propertarianism.com/2018/06/02/the-scope-of-propertarianism-natural-law/3 – THIRD QUESTION: THE OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY: An overview of the content of Propertarianism. propertarianism.com/basic-concepts/

  • Man: Known as In Self Deceptions or Known as In Demonstrated Actions (truth)?

    October 21st, 2018 1:36 PM MAN: KNOWN AS IN SELF DECEPTIONS OR KNOWN AS IN DEMONSTRATED ACTIONS (TRUTH)?

    —“If Propertarianism is grounded solely on science and not religion, then on what basis is Man (with a great M) known?”—Josef Kalinin

    Joseph : I can’t decompose that question. Man ‘is’, (exists as) that which he has demonstrated by his history. the stories (sedations) we tell ourselves at any point in history, merely serve to ameliorate our instincts (largely status) in relation to our resources (physical, emotional, mental) budges, and existential resources in all their forms – from physical things to relationships to knowledge. So are you asking “What is man?”, or “What methods of sedation (self medication) has man used through history?” Propertarianism ‘accounts for’ (takes account of): Math, Logic, Science (Physics-Chemistry-Biology, Psychology, Law, Economics, History, Literature, Philosophy, Religion, The Occult, the Fictionalisms, and Methods of Deceit. What it most takes account of, and no others do, is the transition of our understanding, knowledge and instrumentation from human scale to pre (supra/below) and post (super/above) human scale. And as such at humans scale (Morality, Instructions, arithmetic(construction),confirmation) we speak in justifications (Via-Positivas) because we can directly apprehend such constant relations, where at below and above human scale (Law, Science, Mathematics(deduction), Falsification) we speak in falsifications (Via-Negativas) because we cannot directly perceive those constant relations with our senses. The world wars (Anglo/Balance and Russian/Expansion Screw Ups) interrupted the darwinian-mengerian-specerian-maxwellian-poincarian-nietzschiean-romanticist revolution. And the 20th century in social science was lost, as the cult-of-dysgenic-socialism found itself in a christ figure versus a darwinian evil of eugenic-national-socialism, which allowed the suppression of the second scientific revolution (in germany). But beginning in the 1990’s science has (slowly) rescued us such that without immigration we would have corrected the problem already.

  • Man: Known as In Self Deceptions or Known as In Demonstrated Actions (truth)?

    October 21st, 2018 1:36 PM MAN: KNOWN AS IN SELF DECEPTIONS OR KNOWN AS IN DEMONSTRATED ACTIONS (TRUTH)?

    —“If Propertarianism is grounded solely on science and not religion, then on what basis is Man (with a great M) known?”—Josef Kalinin

    Joseph : I can’t decompose that question. Man ‘is’, (exists as) that which he has demonstrated by his history. the stories (sedations) we tell ourselves at any point in history, merely serve to ameliorate our instincts (largely status) in relation to our resources (physical, emotional, mental) budges, and existential resources in all their forms – from physical things to relationships to knowledge. So are you asking “What is man?”, or “What methods of sedation (self medication) has man used through history?” Propertarianism ‘accounts for’ (takes account of): Math, Logic, Science (Physics-Chemistry-Biology, Psychology, Law, Economics, History, Literature, Philosophy, Religion, The Occult, the Fictionalisms, and Methods of Deceit. What it most takes account of, and no others do, is the transition of our understanding, knowledge and instrumentation from human scale to pre (supra/below) and post (super/above) human scale. And as such at humans scale (Morality, Instructions, arithmetic(construction),confirmation) we speak in justifications (Via-Positivas) because we can directly apprehend such constant relations, where at below and above human scale (Law, Science, Mathematics(deduction), Falsification) we speak in falsifications (Via-Negativas) because we cannot directly perceive those constant relations with our senses. The world wars (Anglo/Balance and Russian/Expansion Screw Ups) interrupted the darwinian-mengerian-specerian-maxwellian-poincarian-nietzschiean-romanticist revolution. And the 20th century in social science was lost, as the cult-of-dysgenic-socialism found itself in a christ figure versus a darwinian evil of eugenic-national-socialism, which allowed the suppression of the second scientific revolution (in germany). But beginning in the 1990’s science has (slowly) rescued us such that without immigration we would have corrected the problem already.

  • Answering Criticisms

    On Curt’s Rules of Discourse

    “The Teaching Law on Social Media Is Like Teaching in A Locker Room”

    Criticisms of Curt

    Well, you know, teaching in a locker room requries certain chops.

    Criticisms of Propertarianism

    “There Are Some. You Aren’t Making Them. But They’re Not Of The Work”

    Criticism of Open Discourse on Revolt

    “All Revolutions are Suspect in Prospect but Deterministic in Retrospect.”“The Surest Means of Preventing People From Stumbling into Civil War Is To Make them Certain They Are Doing It, And That You Have A Solution To Prevent it.”

    • Why No Secrecy?
    • Why Talk of Revolt, Revolution, Civil War?
    • How Revolutions Are Made
    • The Biggest Army in The World? Us.
    • The Hierarchy of Warfare

    Approach to Other Conservatives

    “Men Form Packs, Wear Uniforms of their Packs, and Choose Leaders of their Packs that Share Their Paradigms and Interests.  Packs must work together not coalesce into a herd, It won’t happen.”

    • Visions of The Future
    • Thoughts on Others
    • Our Packs Must Work Together Toward Shared Ends
    • The Languages of Male Packs
    • Fearful Conservatives – Understand Yourselves
    • Intolerance – We Don”t Need You if You’re Costly
    • Any Good Arguments for Supremacy?

    Criticism of Others

    “Mises, Rothbard, Hoppe, Yarvin, and Hayek and yes, Doolittle all tried to solve the problem of social sciences under rule of law versus rule by men. They just did so dragging their cultural means of persuasion, and reasoning with them. The difference is that Anglo empiricism and its scientific method is simply the operation of the court of tort applied outside the courtroom. I knew they were all close but failing. It was a hard problem made harder by their backgrounds.”“It is rarely valuable to criticize others except to learn by doing so. They aren’t interested. The best you can do is counteract whatever harm they’re doing.”David Friedman ( David is the least bad of the jewish libertarians. But at some point someone asked me to do a treatment and I did. It was so embarrassing I had to stop after ten pages. )

    • asdfasdfasdf

    Jordan Peterson (“Peterson has probably run his course but done well doing so. My principal criticism is that he retains devotion to parable and mysticism. In his business of therapy this means of suggestion is an appeal to an authority that serves his purposes of reprogramming the patient without cognitive resistance.  That is problematic but tolerable. What’s not tolerable is his conflation of Useful Wisdom with Truth.”)

    • asdasdfasdf

    Stefan Molyneux  (“I don’t really criticize Stefan, it’s more that I want him to complete his journey on the one hand and stop reinforcing silly libertarian NAP nonsense on the other.”)

    • fasdfasdf

    Nassim Taleb (“Taleb and I work on a similar problem from two ends of the spectrum of that problem, and we have similarly intolerant personalities. However, his attempt to discredit IQ as a means of defending immigration into Europe by his people was something I couldn’t pass on.”)

    • adsfasdf

  • Answering Criticisms

    On Curt’s Rules of Discourse

    “The Teaching Law on Social Media Is Like Teaching in A Locker Room”

    Criticisms of Curt

    Well, you know, teaching in a locker room requries certain chops.

    Criticisms of Propertarianism

    “There Are Some. You Aren’t Making Them. But They’re Not Of The Work”

    Criticism of Open Discourse on Revolt

    “All Revolutions are Suspect in Prospect but Deterministic in Retrospect.”“The Surest Means of Preventing People From Stumbling into Civil War Is To Make them Certain They Are Doing It, And That You Have A Solution To Prevent it.”

    • Why No Secrecy?
    • Why Talk of Revolt, Revolution, Civil War?
    • How Revolutions Are Made
    • The Biggest Army in The World? Us.
    • The Hierarchy of Warfare

    Approach to Other Conservatives

    “Men Form Packs, Wear Uniforms of their Packs, and Choose Leaders of their Packs that Share Their Paradigms and Interests.  Packs must work together not coalesce into a herd, It won’t happen.”

    • Visions of The Future
    • Thoughts on Others
    • Our Packs Must Work Together Toward Shared Ends
    • The Languages of Male Packs
    • Fearful Conservatives – Understand Yourselves
    • Intolerance – We Don”t Need You if You’re Costly
    • Any Good Arguments for Supremacy?

    Criticism of Others

    “Mises, Rothbard, Hoppe, Yarvin, and Hayek and yes, Doolittle all tried to solve the problem of social sciences under rule of law versus rule by men. They just did so dragging their cultural means of persuasion, and reasoning with them. The difference is that Anglo empiricism and its scientific method is simply the operation of the court of tort applied outside the courtroom. I knew they were all close but failing. It was a hard problem made harder by their backgrounds.”“It is rarely valuable to criticize others except to learn by doing so. They aren’t interested. The best you can do is counteract whatever harm they’re doing.”David Friedman ( David is the least bad of the jewish libertarians. But at some point someone asked me to do a treatment and I did. It was so embarrassing I had to stop after ten pages. )

    • asdfasdfasdf

    Jordan Peterson (“Peterson has probably run his course but done well doing so. My principal criticism is that he retains devotion to parable and mysticism. In his business of therapy this means of suggestion is an appeal to an authority that serves his purposes of reprogramming the patient without cognitive resistance.  That is problematic but tolerable. What’s not tolerable is his conflation of Useful Wisdom with Truth.”)

    • asdasdfasdf

    Stefan Molyneux  (“I don’t really criticize Stefan, it’s more that I want him to complete his journey on the one hand and stop reinforcing silly libertarian NAP nonsense on the other.”)

    • fasdfasdf

    Nassim Taleb (“Taleb and I work on a similar problem from two ends of the spectrum of that problem, and we have similarly intolerant personalities. However, his attempt to discredit IQ as a means of defending immigration into Europe by his people was something I couldn’t pass on.”)

    • adsfasdf

  • MAN: KNOWN AS I SELF DECEPTIONS OR KNOWN AS IN DEMONSTRATED ACTIONS (TRUTH)? —

    MAN: KNOWN AS I SELF DECEPTIONS OR KNOWN AS IN DEMONSTRATED ACTIONS (TRUTH)?

    —“If Propertarianism is grounded solely on science and not religion, then on what basis is Man (with a great M) known?”—Josef Kalinin

    Joseph : I can’t decompose that question. Man ‘is’, (exists as) that which he has demonstrated by his history. the stories (sedations) we tell ourselves at any point in history, merely serve to ameliorate our instincts (largely status) in relation to our resources (physical, emotional, mental) budges, and existential resources in all their forms – from physical things to relationships to knowledge.

    So are you asking “What is man?”, or “What methods of sedation (self medication) has man used through history?”

    Propertarianism ‘accounts for’ (takes account of):

    Math, Logic, Science (Physics-Chemistry-Biology, Psychology, Law, Economics, History, Literature, Philosophy, Religion, The Occult, the Fictionalisms, and Methods of Deceit.

    What it most takes account of, and no others do, is the transition of our understanding, knowledge and instrumentation from human scale to pre (supra/below) and post (super/above) human scale.

    And as such at humans scale (Morality, Instructions, arithmetic(construction),confirmation) we speak in justifications (Via-Positivas) because we can directly apprehend such constant relations, where at below and above human scale (Law, Science, Mathematics(deduction), Falsification) we speak in falsifications (Via-Negativas) because we cannot directly perceive those constant relations with our senses.

    The world wars (Anglo/Balance and Russian/Expansion Screw Ups) interrupted the darwinian-mengerian-specerian-maxwellian-poincarian-nietzschiean-romanticist revolution. And the 20th century in social science was lost, as the cult-of-dysgenic-socialism found itself in a christ figure versus a darwinian evil of eugenic-national-socialism, which allowed the suppression of the second scientific revolution (in germany).

    But beginning in the 1990’s science has (slowly) rescued us such that without immigration we would have corrected the problem already.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-21 13:36:00 UTC