Curt Doolittle

Theme: Truth

  • Idiomatic and Ostensive vs Imperative and Declarative.

    “Privileging the Meaningful Over the Truthful Allows One to Discount the Declarative and Secure the Opportunity to Lie.”

    by Bill Joslin (genius) [I]n Ganz’s terms, Generative Anthropology is idiomatic and ostensive (also speculative) whereas Propertarianism is imperative and declarative. What allows for the apparent contradictions is not accounting for the inquisitive (questions as a distinct set opposed to a subset of the imperative). Identifying what question one attempts to answer distinguishes the meaningful from the truthful and why these are not always interchangeable.Privileging the meaningful over the truthful allows one to discount the declarative and secure the opportunity to lie. ( CD: color me awed )

  • Idiomatic and Ostensive vs Imperative and Declarative.

    “Privileging the Meaningful Over the Truthful Allows One to Discount the Declarative and Secure the Opportunity to Lie.”

    by Bill Joslin (genius) [I]n Ganz’s terms, Generative Anthropology is idiomatic and ostensive (also speculative) whereas Propertarianism is imperative and declarative. What allows for the apparent contradictions is not accounting for the inquisitive (questions as a distinct set opposed to a subset of the imperative). Identifying what question one attempts to answer distinguishes the meaningful from the truthful and why these are not always interchangeable.Privileging the meaningful over the truthful allows one to discount the declarative and secure the opportunity to lie. ( CD: color me awed )

  • Joslin on Generative Anthropology (postmodern)

    September 19th, 2018 5:53 PM JOSLIN ON GENERATIVE ANTHROPOLOGY (POSTMODERN)

    [T]ruth pertains to truth bearance (transmission of a claim which can be tested for “true-falseness”.) Meaning pertains to coherence to a frame. They can coexist, but truth pertains only to coherence with the existential frame (does it exist). Because it has this quality of coherence (to existence), we can ignore the limit (that it is limited to the existential frame) and then argue it on the merits of meaning. Meaningful statements may or may not be truth carriers – declarations on the state of affairs of existence, by definition, must carry truth or they are not declarations on the state of affairs of existence… they are not declarative statements. The declarative and truth pertain to one frame – that being the existential frame (does it exist or not). Dismissing this limit is what seals the opportunity to lie.

    ==== To Expand on what Bill Said: Truth: the one most parsimonious frame of continuous, complet decidability. Gans is a marxist postmodernist in the french model, picking up after girard, and combining his ‘memes’ with chomsky’s generative grammar. Otherwise its just pete and repeat. The authoritarians cant use truth. The anti-darwinists can’t use truth. The irreciprocalists can’t use truth, so they follow the social constructionist method, which Girard argues is effectively a ‘frame war’ where parties compete for the best lies. Since such frames are not decidable only internally coherent (not even consistent), and not correspondent, there is no method of defeating them except by either superior lies (better market service of fantasy), or truth and law. Since truth is decidable and law is decidable it is possible to prosecute all frames other than truth, through coherence, consistency, correspondence, rationality, reciprocity and completeness, and it’s good. Nothing that can be produced by fraud cannot be produced by truthful contract. SO the only reason to lie is to avoid reciprocity and contract. Feminine justificationism of anything. Male adjudication of anything. conformity and comfort, truth and discomfort. -Curt

  • Joslin on Generative Anthropology (postmodern)

    September 19th, 2018 5:53 PM JOSLIN ON GENERATIVE ANTHROPOLOGY (POSTMODERN)

    [T]ruth pertains to truth bearance (transmission of a claim which can be tested for “true-falseness”.) Meaning pertains to coherence to a frame. They can coexist, but truth pertains only to coherence with the existential frame (does it exist). Because it has this quality of coherence (to existence), we can ignore the limit (that it is limited to the existential frame) and then argue it on the merits of meaning. Meaningful statements may or may not be truth carriers – declarations on the state of affairs of existence, by definition, must carry truth or they are not declarations on the state of affairs of existence… they are not declarative statements. The declarative and truth pertain to one frame – that being the existential frame (does it exist or not). Dismissing this limit is what seals the opportunity to lie.

    ==== To Expand on what Bill Said: Truth: the one most parsimonious frame of continuous, complet decidability. Gans is a marxist postmodernist in the french model, picking up after girard, and combining his ‘memes’ with chomsky’s generative grammar. Otherwise its just pete and repeat. The authoritarians cant use truth. The anti-darwinists can’t use truth. The irreciprocalists can’t use truth, so they follow the social constructionist method, which Girard argues is effectively a ‘frame war’ where parties compete for the best lies. Since such frames are not decidable only internally coherent (not even consistent), and not correspondent, there is no method of defeating them except by either superior lies (better market service of fantasy), or truth and law. Since truth is decidable and law is decidable it is possible to prosecute all frames other than truth, through coherence, consistency, correspondence, rationality, reciprocity and completeness, and it’s good. Nothing that can be produced by fraud cannot be produced by truthful contract. SO the only reason to lie is to avoid reciprocity and contract. Feminine justificationism of anything. Male adjudication of anything. conformity and comfort, truth and discomfort. -Curt

  • FASCIST? I’M A FASCIST? Yeah. So… Truth, Reciprocity, Rule of Law, Markets tha

    FASCIST? I’M A FASCIST?

    Yeah. So… Truth, Reciprocity, Rule of Law, Markets that produce prosperity, Family as the central object of policy, paying the underclass not to breed, direct redistribution of liquidity and the polity’s dividends, ending all rent seeking and parasitism both political, financial, and commercial. Exclusionary Nationalism as a means of increasing tolerance for inter-class redistribution, increasing the opportunity for local status attainment; producing commons suitable to the demographics; reducing all possible costs of mutual cooperation and invention; public-private investment in technological, industrial, and commercial innovation. And total suppression of political warfare to impose any alternative.

    Yeah. Well, that’s my version of Natural Law and it looks a whole lot like NATIONAL SOCIALISM without the silly mustache.

    So yeah. In the sense that fascism refers to zero tolerance for opposition to all of the above, I’m definitely a fascist.

    And if you aren’t also then you have no idea what you’re saying other than advocating for free riding, parasitism and predation upon others.

    So the question is, if you’re not the same kind of fascist, then you’re by definition an unethical and immoral enemy of not only me and mine but all mankind.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-09-18 15:12:00 UTC

  • WE CAN’T WE JUST TELL THE LEFT THE TRUTH? 1) Our civilization has succeeded beca

    WE CAN’T WE JUST TELL THE LEFT THE TRUTH?

    1) Our civilization has succeeded because it’s been eugenic in every era – right up until the industrial revolution.

    2) We find you disgusting.

    3) and its because you’re unfit.

    4) and you are unfit because you lack agency.

    5) and you lack agency because you’re still undomesticated.

    6) and as undomesticated still an animal.

    7) and it isn’t any more complicated than that.

    8) we cannot cooperate with you on equal terms any more than we can cooperate with any other animal – you lack the agency.

    9) We don’t grant barn animals equality which is why we don’t grant you equality. And we don’t want barn animals in our homes, business, or our commons.

    10) This is what we mean when we want to separate from you.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-09-18 12:29:00 UTC

  • TRUTH. WE JUST FIND THEM DISGUSTING. SO JUST SAY IT. —“The Leftist tendency is

    TRUTH. WE JUST FIND THEM DISGUSTING. SO JUST SAY IT.

    —“The Leftist tendency is to conflate the Rightist Disgust response to various things as “phobias”. In other words, the Left confuses Disgust for Fear.”—

    The right is just too well mannered to say:

    “Actually it’s because we find your/their ____________ behavior disgusting and revolting because it is a genetic defect, and harmful to the tribe.”

    I mean. Why can’t we just say that? “You know, We don’t like dogs dragging their anuses on the carpet, or ___________ doing ________. Genetic defects are disgusting to us. And you’re advocating for genetic defects that are disgusting.

    (We have a purity instinct. They don’t. Hence women’s fascination with the discussion of children’s bodily fluids and excrements.)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-09-18 11:46:00 UTC

  • “Privileging the Meaningful Over the Truthful Allows One to Discount the Declara

    “Privileging the Meaningful Over the Truthful Allows One to Discount the Declarative and Secure the Opportunity to Lie.”

    by Bill Joslin

    (genius)

    In Ganz’s terms, Generative Anthropology is idiomatic and ostensive (also speculative) whereas Propertarianism is imperative and declarative.

    What allows for the apparent contradictions is not accounting for the inquisitive (questions as a distinct set opposed to a subset of the imperative).

    Identifying what question one attempts to answer distinguishes the meaningful from the truthful and why these are not always interchangeable.

    Privileging the meaningful over the truthful allows one to discount the declarative and secure the opportunity to lie.

    (color me awed)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-09-18 09:53:00 UTC

  • Fascist? I’m a Fascist?

    [Y]eah. So… Truth, Reciprocity, Rule of Law, Markets that produce prosperity, Family as the central object of policy, paying the underclass not to breed, direct redistribution of liquidity and the polity’s dividends, ending all rent seeking and parasitism both political, financial, and commercial. Exclusionary Nationalism as a means of increasing tolerance for inter-class redistribution, increasing the opportunity for local status attainment; producing commons suitable to the demographics; reducing all possible costs of mutual cooperation and invention; public-private investment in technological, industrial, and commercial innovation. And total suppression of political warfare to impose any alternative. Yeah. Well, that’s my version of Natural Law and it looks a whole lot like NATIONAL SOCIALISM without the silly mustache. So yeah. In the sense that fascism refers to zero tolerance for opposition to all of the above, I’m definitely a fascist. And if you aren’t also then you have no idea what you’re saying other than advocating for free riding, parasitism and predation upon others. So the question is, if you’re not the same kind of fascist, then you’re by definition an unethical and immoral enemy of not only me and mine but all mankind.

  • Fascist? I’m a Fascist?

    [Y]eah. So… Truth, Reciprocity, Rule of Law, Markets that produce prosperity, Family as the central object of policy, paying the underclass not to breed, direct redistribution of liquidity and the polity’s dividends, ending all rent seeking and parasitism both political, financial, and commercial. Exclusionary Nationalism as a means of increasing tolerance for inter-class redistribution, increasing the opportunity for local status attainment; producing commons suitable to the demographics; reducing all possible costs of mutual cooperation and invention; public-private investment in technological, industrial, and commercial innovation. And total suppression of political warfare to impose any alternative. Yeah. Well, that’s my version of Natural Law and it looks a whole lot like NATIONAL SOCIALISM without the silly mustache. So yeah. In the sense that fascism refers to zero tolerance for opposition to all of the above, I’m definitely a fascist. And if you aren’t also then you have no idea what you’re saying other than advocating for free riding, parasitism and predation upon others. So the question is, if you’re not the same kind of fascist, then you’re by definition an unethical and immoral enemy of not only me and mine but all mankind.