Uncategorized

The Answer: The Future of Religion

(religion)
 
[J]ust because your ancestors valued a particular comforting lie or falsehood is not a reason to perpetuate the lie or falsehood. We are comfortable now with suppressing lies with physical science where were were not so in the past.
 
We are currently uncomfortable with suppressing lies in social science: ethics, politics, economics, religion, and war, but we will not be so uncomfortable in the future.
 
I am almost certain that the gains from ending lies in social science will be as great as those from ending lies in physical science.
 
But I suspect an even greater effort to preserve lies in social science than the effort to preserve lies in physical science.
 
Why? Because the church had only the pulpit, which we eventually defeated with the press. But the Academy has the media, and we are not yet sure that the internet is as capable of defeating the lies of the academy as the book was in defeating the lies of the church.
 
Both have had the same incentives: to perpetuate their income by the sale of forgiveness or indulgences, just as the academy sells the promise of prosperity and diplomas.
 
The monetary incentives of the church and academy are the same.
 
The customer base of the church and the academy are the same.
 
The church sold mysticism for millennia.
 
The academy has been selling pseudoscience for over a century.
 
The way we end the academy’s lies is to defund it like we did the church. The way we defund it is through the same revolution that it took to defund the church.
 
But if we merely shift the academy to something new, just as we shifted the church to the academy, we have only moved to a new problem rather than solving the problem.
 
The answer is to reform the church and the academy so that they sell truths, not lies. Truths in physical science, truth in social science, truth in what is best called ‘spiritual science’: mindfulness.
 
There are many ways to produce mindfulness: from stoic philosophy, to sport, to yoga, to meditation, to the piety and sacredness of commons and ritual, to the creation of arts. The human mind requires mindfulness without the constant peer feedback of the consanguinous tribe. The greater the division of knowledge and labor, the more important is mindfulness for the happiness of the human mind.
 
So it is possible to construct a church, academy, and commons that produces truth in physical, truth in the social, and truth in the mind.
 
We need no lies. There is no excuse for lies. Lies exist to profit only from the loss of others.
 
We can sell truth rather than sell fraud.
 
We can remake the west.
 
Because it is these truths that were the original path of western civilization before the great lies were leashed upon us by the great liars of history.
 
Science: truth in the physical.
Nature: truth in the commons
Law: truth in the market.
Stoicism: truth in the mind.
 
We are the people who invented truth.
Truth is our religion.
We can return to the truth.
 
End the lies
Remake man in the image of gods: truth.
 
Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute,
Kiev, Ukraine
Uncategorized

Books on Revolutions

[A] lot of work on revolutions is just regurgitation of the American and french, both of which tell us little. And most is meaningless today.

For some background I would recommend these:

  • Goldstone’s Short Introduction
  • Goldstone’s Revolutions
  • Brinton’s Anatomy of Revolution
  • The IRA Handbook
  • Search google for “revolutionary handbook” (most are there)
  • Poole’s Tactics of the Crescent Moon
  • Creveld’s The Culture of War

Culture is important because what you think is winning is what you feel is winning and what you feel is winning is a cultural norm NOT a truth.

Uncategorized

Philosophy: Unloaded Science vs Loaded Literature

(important piece on the form and content of philosophy)

Testimony vs Literature
Truth vs Experience
Criticism vs Free Association
Survival vs Creativity
Deflationary vs Conflationary
Clarify vs Obscure
Persuasion vs Suggestion
Decidability vs Opportunity
Decrease Cost vs Increase Cost
Save vs Spend
Action vs Consumption
Production vs Entertainment
Science vs Art

What is the difference between an action novel and a philosophical treatise? You are carried into the plot, vs the plot is carried into you.

But they are both literature.

That is all.

A recipe is different from a work of literature.

Science(Testimony) consists of the methods by which we create recipes and name them. Literature the methods by which we create experiences.

Communication, like violence, is a resource put to good or ill.

Whether we create fully informed, productive, warrantied voluntary exchanges free of externalities – meaning moral communication – or whether we create suggestion, unproductive or harmful, unwarranted, involuntary transfers full of externalities – meaning immoral communication.

And the fact remains that it is very difficult to communicate immorally with recipes, it is very easy to communicate immorally with literature.

Yet given that experience is our native language – one which evolved prior to reason – pedagogy is often best performed with loaded, framed, and repeated (overloaded) analogy.

There is a place for truth.
There is a place for pedagogy.
There is a place for creativity
The question we must ask of some philosophers is whether there is a place for immoral suggestion rather than moral communication.
And whether they transfer by moral or immoral means, immoral or moral ends.

The philosophy of the west is natural law, common law, testimony, jury, universal standing and rule of law (universal applicability). Science is the art of improving one’s testimony.

Everything else is merely literature.

The question is whether that literature conveys moral or immoral content, and does so morally or immorally.

And from that perspective, philosophers have a very checkered past.

Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine

Uncategorized

Is Philosophy the Literature of Deceit?

[W]hen you switch from the conduct of pedagogy to science, justification to criticism, opportunity searching to error reduction, you see that philosophy has unjustifiably self congratulated itself quite a bit throughout history.

And when you find the central problem of epistemology is not improvement of your own meagre ability to produce ideas, but the detection of deception in the extraordinary ability of the collective to produce a market of ideas, then you treat the philosophical discourse very differently.

I have taken to assuming all philosophical statements are attempts at free riding, and that I must discover how they seek free riding.

This has become my current view of philosophy.

On the other hand it requires a catalog of human errors just as it requires a catalog of crimes, to practice the craft of prosecuting thought in the advancement of fraud.

Uncategorized

(sketch) Science Replaces Philosophy

 

[S]CIENCE REPLACES PHILOSOPHY

Existence (need for action)
Aesthetics (the sciences of experiences / experience / spirituality)
Testimony (the sciences of truth telling / knowledge / psychology)
Law (the sciences of cooperation / each other / sociology)
Engineering (the hard sciences / the universe / physics)

[M]ETHODS OF COMMUNICATION
Law(cooperation), Laws
Aesthetics(pleasure), Experiences
Literature(conflation), Analogies
Science (deflation). Names.

PHILOSOPHY IS COMPLETE

Uncategorized

(Diary) Progress on Deception in Literature and Philosophy

[G]reat progress on this problem of literature and deception that I have been struggling with for years.

I have these periods where I think I am not making progress, and then I make a great deal of progress in a few days. The periods where I make little progress are just records of the effort it takes to solve some of these problems.

Some of these problems are very hard. Which is why it takes generations to solve them.

I am sure rothbard would not appreciate what I have done. Hoppe isn’t going to love me any day soon. But it took us three generations to solve this problem. Each of us improving upon the last.

I could have moved much faster if Hoppe had given me some of his time. But I suspect the conceptual bridge would have been a bridge too far.

Unfortunately he was the only person worth talking to. So I had to do it almost all on my own. But with a little help from the Critical rationalists.

The critical rationalists are still mad at me.

But they were a necessary resource in the solution to the problem.

If I can’t bring them along, then I can’t. It’s not important.