3.1-Introduction · Anti-Philosophy · Languages (Precision) · Law · Sequences · Uncategorized

Correcting Aristotle’s Categories of Philosophy

The Law of Nature “Correcting Aristotle on Categories of Philosophy”

Physical Laws (Transformation) – THE NECESSARY

Physics: Astronomy, Chemistry, Biology, Sentience, Engineering, Mathematics

Law of Man (properties of man) (Action) – THE POSSIBLE

Acquisition, perception, memory, psychology, sociology

Natural Law – Cooperation – THE GOOD

Ethics, morality, law, economics

Law of Testimony – THE TRUE

Testimony, epistemology, grammar, logics, rhetoric

Law of Aesthetics – THE BEAUTIFUL

Sense, beauty, design, craft, content. manners. Fitness

–Curt Doolittle, The Propertarian Institute, Kiev, Ukraine

3.1-Introduction · Definitions · Languages (Precision) · Sequences · Uncategorized

Defining Philosophy


I have been working on defining philosophy (because like truth, it wasn’t defined before).

And you know, there are a few ways to approach it: western philosophy (argumentative methodology) or philosophy in all cultures (multiple argumentative methodologies). And whether the philosophy is literary and imaginative (possibilities), escapist (most), a form of assistance(sinic), or problem solving (western).

And what constitutes truth in each methodology – which differs dramatically from civilization to civilization.

Now, I’m going to say that philosophy is to reason what apperception is to consciousness: the re-measuring of all related relations in response to the new measure provided by the new information. In other words: recursive recalculation in response to new measurements.

The difference being that while cognition and apperception are continuous autonomic processes, reason and philosophy are guided processes, in which we devote (concentrate) resources (mental) to achieve desired ends.

This is, I think, the correct description of the processes of reason and philosophy.

Reason measures. Philosophy seeks commensurability of new ideas to old Ideas and refactors old ideas recursively as a consequence.

At this point we should see the general union of neurology, computer science, and information: commensurability that makes judgment (comparison) possible.

Western philosophy differs in its analytic (deconflated) versus synthetic (conflated) method of reasoning.

The categories of philosophy form an expanding hierarchy:
– existence (actionability)
– epistemology (knowledge)
– truth (testimony)
– ethics and morality (cooperation in production )
– politics (cooperation in production of commons )
– group evolutionary strategy (competition against other groups)
– aesthetics (means of associating emotions with principles that advance all of the above)

And we make use of a hierarchy of argument types:
– reason
– rationalism (non-contradiction)
– logic (internal consistency)
– empiricism (external correspondence)
– operationalism (existential possibility)
– voluntarism (moral possibility)

And we make use of a hierarchy of measurements
– identity (category)
– counting (measurement)
– arithmetic (operations)
– mathematics (sets)
– geometry (space)
– calculus (change)
– post-euclidian calculus (logical rather than physical relations)

And we practice different fields:
– physical science(s)
– cooperative science(s)
– informational science(s)
– aesthetic science(s).
(and we conflate these fields as needed to produce goods, services, and information)

And we conduct these arguments using different languages and methods appropriate to each of the classes. And each language places greater demand on the individual’s ability to reason.

So my view of philosophy proper is an analytic deconflated process by which we recursively render commensurable the full range of stimuli from the most primitive to the most complex.

Everything else I would tend to describe as moral literature, or literary law.

I don’t see philosophy proper anywhere other than in the west and a touch of it in the east.

What I see is analogies to philosophy proper, that we have no names for, but can be decomposed into the forms of conflation that they use, across fields, measurements, and argument types.


A Few Personal Notes on Rorty

3-Philosophy (Moral Entrepreneurs)
2-Intellectual History

Literature(meaningful) —Curt

We are all relying upon narratives that provide decidability for the purpose of pursuing allies in the achievement of a condition, not truth. We only rely upon a truthful narrative when it assists us attracting allies in the achievement of a condition. –Curt

Shinto when we’re born,
Confucian when we’re adolescent,
Christian when we’re married,
Buddhist when we die. — Japanese Saying

Rationality – in that one consents to be persuaded – is a social virtue not a human faculty. Reason is a human faculty. Rationality is a moral virtue – a property of cooperation. — Rorty restated by Doolittle

“It’s not a surprise that religion, democracy, and science, are in conflict: power.”–Rorty

“Another sense of philosophy describes how various ideas fit together.” — Rorty. Well, I would say that philosophy consists of logic (necessity), criticism (science), integration(rationality), advocacy(moral literature), and imagining (fantasy literature). And that religion conflates advocacy, imagining, and Law (force). –Curt

“if we take care of education and democratic freedom then truth will take care of itself”–Dewey. Well, it turns out that Dewey/Rorty are wrong. Just the opposite. – Curt

Judaism is, like American pragmatism, a feminine philosophy, in that consequences to the commons are irrelevant. All that matters is the consequences to those collectively extant in the moment. — Curt

Rorty makes the progressive error of the steady-state. We always fight the red queen. We have lost that under the temporary prosperity of industrialism. But the red queen has shifted just as crime has shifted. We compete against economies and resources and institutions, not against farming and territory and demographics. — Curt

What objectively right vs objectively better = Survival of your gene pool. It is objectively right, and objectively better. — Curt

3.1-Introduction · Core · Uncategorized

Q&A: Curt: What is Your Innovation on Popper in Epistemology, Science, and Truth?

–“Curt, I believe I already know the answer to this, but believe it to be valuable to your general audience nonetheless: what is your innovation on Popper in epistemology, science, and truth?”—Moritz Bierling

It’s very hard to do this question justice in a few thousand words. But tend to think of it as in the last century we had a lot of thinkers basically fail to complete the scientific method and thereby create a test of non-falseness like we do in law. And they couldn’t do it.

What I’ve done, because I”ve been lucky enough to spend most of my life working with “computable” systems – meaning **existentially possible to construct through a series of operations** is supply the habits of strict operational construction with requirements for existential possibiity, to the scientific method, and complete what those thinkers failed to discover.

Popper applied Jewish critique, (criticism, which evolved into cultural marxism), to science, as “falsificationism”. Meaning, the way to avoid pseudoscience is to require that a statement be falsifiable.

He did this because pseudoscience was rapidly expanding under the popularity of authoritarian socialism, as much as because he was simply interested in philosophy. He was trying to preserve intellectual cosmopolitanism (Jewish diasporism), and this culminated in his work “The Open Society” which is what Soros uses as his ‘plan’.

Now, in his efforts to correct science, he developed a set of ideas that I will try to reduce to these:
1) Falsification (critique, criticism) vs justificationism (excuses)
2) Critical Rationalism: we can
3) Critical Preference: we cannot know which theory is more likely true. there is no method of decidability.
4) Verisimilitude through Problem->Theory->Test
5) That science, by verisimilitude, is conducted as a MORAL (social, normative) process, and that scientific discovery was accomplished by moral means.


Unempirical: his statements are logical not empirical, and he never did any research, nor has any been formally done.

Costs: he, like most philosophers, continues the Aristotelian tradition of ignoring costs. Costs provide us with information about which theories we can afford to pursue. Historically then, we can empirically demonstrate that man uses costs as methods of decidability.

Decidability: Costs provide decidability, for the simple reason that just as we pursue the least cost methods of research, nature evolves using the least cost method of evolution. It’s only humans that can choose to do the expensive thing and take a risk. Nature can’t do that. Nature is tightly deterministic. Man is only loosely deterministic. Because all of us guess a future and see if we can achieve it.

Falsification: Falsification is not very precise, and he did not see the dimensions. So he did not restate the scientific method as a series of dimensional tests equal to the dimensional tests of mathematics. So categories(identity), math(relations), logic (words/membership), operations (costs/existence), morality (choice/cooperation), and scope (full accounting) were each methods of falsification, that a scientific statement would have to pass.

Verisimilitude: Because costs do determine the progress of our investigations, our knowledge evolves just as organisms evolve, planets evolve, solar systems, galaxies, and the universe. What differs is the cost of inquiry in each culture. White people happen to have the lowest cost of inquiry because they have a high trust civilization where the norm of truth is highly defended as (nearly sacred) public property.
Physical absence vs Social presence of first causes. Unable to distinguish between the problem of instrumentation in the physical sciences in the absence of knowledge of first causes (‘nature’s choice’), versus the problem of subjective instrumentation in the social sciences, in the presence of first causes (sympathetic choice)

The Cycle
Problem -> Theory -> Test is actually … incomplete.

The correct structure is:
Perception(random) ->
…Free association (searching) ->
……Hypothesis (wayfinding) ->
………Criticism(test – individual investment) ->
…………Theory (recipe/route) ->
……………Social Criticism (common investment) ->
………………Law (exhaustion – return on investment) ->
…………………Survival (Perfect Parsimony – incorporation into norms) ->
……………………Tautology ( invisible – assumed world structure )

This long chain that represents the evolutionary survival of ideas, can be broken into these sections:
1 – Perception -> free association(searching) -> identity (opportunity)
2 – Question (Problem)
3 – Iterative Criticism ( Survival!!! )
………..wayfinding (criticism) / Hypothesis.  Wayfinding is a form of criticizing an idea.
………..criticism / theory / personal use
………..testing / law / general use
………..recognition / survival / universal use
………..identity / tautology / integration into world view.

The dimensions of criticism in pursuit of Determinism (Regularity, Predictability, “true”)
– categorical consistency (identity)
– internal consistency (logical) (mathematical/relations, linguistic/sets)
– external consistency (empirical correspondence)
– existential consistency (existential possibility)
– moral consistency (symmetric non imposition)
– scope consistency (full accounting, limits, parsimony)

If a statement (promises) or theory passes all of these tests it is very hard for it to still contain their opposites:
– error in its many forms
– bias – wishful thinking in its many forms.
– suggestion – pleading – guilting – shaming – complimenting
– obscurantism, pseudorationalism, pseudoscience – overloading
– lying and deceit in their many forms.

Truth is the most parsimonious operational description that we can give short of a tautology. In other words, truth is the search FOR TRUE NAMES.


I have also discussed truth in quite a bit of depth elsewhere so I don’t feel its important to discuss it here.

So what I have attempted to do is ‘complete’ the scientific method, that popper started upon. It is not particular to science, but to any TESTIMONY we might attempt to give.

The consequence of doing so is that philosophy, morality, law, and science are now synonyms using the same language and structure.
Which kind of floored me actually.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute

3.1-Introduction · Core · Languages (Precision) · Religion · Sequences · Truth

Truth, Law of Information, Natural Law of Cooperation, Physical Law of the Universe

(religion) (read it and weep) (advances on hume, damning of rawls)

[O]ur brains are smaller than those of our distant ancestors.

With the evolution of language we were able to learn more by shared calculation: in the form of thinking and reasoning than we could by our own observation, memory, and judgement.

By communicating using language thereby transferring experience, we extended our perception, could make use of other’s memories.

But with greater perception and less individual certainty of that perception, we needed a means of judgement. Or what we call, a method of decidability.

With greater numbers, and a greater division of perception, we required even greater tools of judgement, of choice, of decidability.

We needed ‘theories’ of the good. And those theories evolve in parallel with the extent of our cooperation:
“What is good for me?” and “What is true enough for me to act?” using the criteria “So that what I gain by the action is preferable to not doing so.”

1) What is good for me : what is true enough for me to act without retaliation

2) What is good for me and good for us : what is true enough to encourage future cooperation?

3) What is good for me and good for us, and good for all those like us, so that we encourage cooperation of others, and do not encourage retaliation.

4) What is good for me, and good for us, and good for all mankind, so that we TRANSCEND. (Evolve).

This problem of decidability is the origin of our myth, religion, and philosophy – and now science. These techniques
Just as in ethics we start with mythical inspiration, and evolve into ethical virtues, to ethical rules, to ethical outcomes, we evolve from the actions of the individual, to the ethics of cooperation, to the ethics of cooperation at scale, to the ethics of transcendence of man.

So, to confer decidability upon all, from the young child to the old and wise, the method of decision making must be accessible for use by everyone from the young child to the old and wise.

A religion comprises a group evolutionary strategy, wherein members are taught metaphysical, mythical, traditional, and normative methods of decidability, by means of analogy.

Traditional law codifies this strategy in prohibitions. Why prohibitions? Because we can all equally refrain from the violation of that group evolutionary strategy, but we cannot equally contribute to the furtherance of that group evolutionary strategy. We are equal in ability to not do, but we are not equal in ability to do.

A group’s evolutionary strategy can be successful or unsuccessful in the persistence of the group – such as by being dependent upon local phenomenon that can change: the worship of the sun so logical in the agrarian era, is no longer so logical in an era of trade, or of industry, or of energy, or of information.

A group’s evolutionary strategy can be successful but violate principle three: in that it encourages retaliation: murder, career thievery, Gypsy petty parasitism, Jewish organized and systemic parasitism, muslim invasion and raiding, Russian low trust propaganda and lying, and Chinese and European ‘Asymmetric Colonialism’.

A groups evolutionary strategy can violate principle four by inhibiting transcendence – such as islam’s demand for respect and mandated ignorance – or a strategy can construct transcendence: Western Indo European Natural Law.

A group’s evolutionary strategy can provide the minimum resistance to transcendence and the maximum possibility of transcendence:

Truth telling law (Truth), Natural Law (cooperation), and physical law (correspondence), the incremental, total suppression of parasitism, under the Common Law. And genetic suppression by the incremental culling of the parasitic from the group by separation, sterilization, and hanging.

And while we can perhaps tech these concepts to children through repetition, we cannot teach it to them as inspiration, without myth, ritual, tradition, and norm to persist it across generations, and to convey it to all those regardless of age and ability.

That we require ‘religion’: myth, ritual and tradition, in narrative, literary form is a product of man’s intellectual evolution from innocent and ignorant child to jaded and experienced sage.

But whether stated as religious narrative, reasoned moral argument, rational justification, strictly constructed law, ratio-scientific criticism or testimonial truth, the actions that result from the use of these forms of communication must produce correspondent results.

So it is not the method of conveyance that we judge – since the method of argument is a measure of the speaker and the audience – but whether
The only transcendent philosophy must be natural law of man and physical law of the universe, stated testimonially – the best that man’s words are able to state.

And therefore the only transcendent religion is Testimonial Truth, The Natural Law of Cooperation, The Physical Law of Correspondence.

All else is lie to obscure parasitism and predation, or it is error that not must be not tolerated, but corrected.

If any mythological, reasonable, rational, ratio-scientific argument is incompatible with natural law, then it is merely an act of predation – an act of war – not a religion.

Christianity and Indo European Paganism are compatible with Natural Law in the production of resulting behavior, as long as inbreeding is prohibited, tolerance for violation of natural law is limited, and the culling of the underclasses by expulsion, separation, incarceration, sterilization, and hanging is encouraged as necessary for the preservation of natural law and the achievement of transcendence.

The Church may not preserve its dependents at the expense of natural law or at the expense of transcendence. That would be the work of the self interest of the bureaucracy of man, not the work of Truth and Transcendence.

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