Author: Curt Doolittle

  • Art is Criticizable. And Like Morality, It’s Objectively Better or Worse

    (worth repeating) [A]s for art theory it’s pretty simple stuff. You can read every significant tome on it in a month. (I am honestly not sure that Rand’s book isn’t one of the best really, in retrospect. And I don’t think much of rand as other than the children’s book version of philosophy for newbs.) All art can be criticized on these three criteria – Craftsmanship (skill in use of materials) – Design (aesthetics – skill in associative pre-cognitive patterns) – Content (meaning – skill in associative cognitive patterns) And, in all three dimensions by these criteria: – Novelty is better (innovation) – Parsimony is better (clarity) – More information is better (richness or density) – Monumental (level of public/social/political value) – Durable is better (the persistence of the work as a reference is better) – Unique is better (the symbol that captures an excellence of a time and place) We tend to see these criteria as as ‘excellence’. Using the three axis, and six criteria, all: – Craft– Design – Art Can be compared and contrasted if not quantitatively(cardinally) at least qualitatively(ordinary). You would think not, but opinion in art coalesces just as do theories in science. While one might have one taste or another, it is very hard to study the whole of art history and not come to about the same conclusion as have all the others: These works are clearly better and these works are clearly not as good. But I PREFER these over the objectively better ones as they suit my taste. (( I didn’t expect to love Medieval art, but I do.  I did come to appreciate through economics the struggles of post-photography artists, and I can also appreciate the minimalists, even if I still despise the pop and marxists. )) If you try it, sort of by stack ranking any set of art pieces by the criteria above it will rapidly become clear to you that art criticism and scientific criticism are extremely similar endeavors. This [messes] with the mind of sentimental people who desperately want an internal intuitionistic truth to appeal to – but it’s sad for them. I’m sorry. Carful criticism still defeats your ‘intuition’. Art is just as open to criticism as any other work of man. There is just a lot of marginal indifference within each strata of work. It’s very obvious after a while that the communists and socialists and feminists and postmodernists attacked art just as they attacked truth. ‘Cause they desperately wanna lie.

  • reduction of IQ increases criminality

    http://www.xenosystems.net/crime-think/Dysgenic reduction of IQ increases criminality


    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-25 17:57:00 UTC

  • summarises HBD: we are just like dog breeds

    https://jaymans.wordpress.com/2015/06/24/200-blog-posts/Jayman summarises HBD: we are just like dog breeds.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-25 17:55:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    http://www.counter-currents.com/2015/06/interview-with-curt-doolittle/


    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-25 15:59:00 UTC

  • ANARCHIC WELL INTENTIONED FOOLS (worth repeating) (from elsewhere) It is a typic

    ANARCHIC WELL INTENTIONED FOOLS

    (worth repeating) (from elsewhere)

    It is a typical tactic of the marxists, and the rothbardians adopted marxist methods of critique, to throw criticism of one’s opponents as a means of distraction from the failure or incompetence or lack of one’s ideas.

    A great example of this technique is Lew Rockwell’s most recent book, which purports to offer solutions, but like most anarchic drivel, consists of nothing more than repeating rants against the state, leaving you waiting for the punch line (solution) that never comes.

    That’s because there isn’t one.

    The only way to eliminate the state (monopoly bureaucracy) is to eliminate demand for the state. And that is non-trivial. It is possible. But it’s non trivial/. And rothbardian low trust ghetto ethics (“aggression against intersubjectively verifiable property”) would increase demand for the state. How do we know? Because low trust ethics are practiced all over the world, and the lower the trust the higher the demand for authoritarian state. (See Russia and every single Arab country.)

    Rothbard is like Marx, Freud, and Cantor and unfortunately Mises: well-intentioned fool using extraordinary verbal productivity and ability to create pseudoscience as means of justifying priors.

    (giving them benefit of the doubt)


    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-25 15:46:00 UTC

  • ART IS VERY CRITICIZABLE, AND LIKE MORALITY IT”S OBJECTIVELY BETTER OR WORSE (wo

    ART IS VERY CRITICIZABLE, AND LIKE MORALITY IT”S OBJECTIVELY BETTER OR WORSE

    (worth repeating)

    As for art theory it’s pretty simple stuff. You can read every significant tome on it in a month. I am honestly not sure that Rand’s book isn’t one of the best really, in retrospect.

    – Craftsmanship (skill in use of materials)

    – Design (aesthetics – skill in associative pre-cognitive patterns)

    – Content (meaning – skill in associative cognitive patterns)

    All art can be criticized on these three criteria. And in simplest terms, in all three dimensions:

    – Novel is better (innovation)

    – Parsimony is better (clarity)

    – More information is better (richness or density)

    – Monumental (level of public/social/political value)

    – Durable (the persistence of the work as a reference is better)

    – Uniqueness (the symbol that captures an excellence of a time and place)

    We tend to see these criteria as as ‘excellence’.

    Using these criteria, all:

    – Craft

    – Design

    – Art

    Can be compared and contrasted if not quantitatively(cardinally) at least qualitatively(ordinary).

    You would think not, but opinion in art coalesces just as do theories in science. While one might have one taste or another, it is very hard to study the whole of art history and not come to about the same conclusion as have all the others: These are clearly better and these are clearly not as good. But I PREFER these over the objectively better ones as they suit my taste.

    I hope this helps.

    If you try it, sort of by stack ranking any set of art pieces by the criteria above it will rapidly become clear to you that art criticism and scientific criticism are extremely similar endeavors.

    This fucks with the mind of sentimental people who desperately want an internal intuitionistic truth to appeal to – but it’s sad for them. I’m sorry.

    Art is just as open to criticism as any other work of man. There is just a lot of marginal indifference withing each strata of work.

    It’s very obvious after a while that the communists and socialists and feminists and postmodernists attacked art just as they attacked truth.

    ‘Cause they desperately wanna lie.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-25 13:35:00 UTC

  • See, if you stick at it for a few years, the incomprehensible is distillable to

    See, if you stick at it for a few years, the incomprehensible is distillable to a string of statements that are – at least for the informed – relatively intelligible. Remember all the criticism I used to get a few years ago? Well, we are getting PRETTY CLEAR these days. 🙂 Patience, hard work, and trial and error.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-25 13:06:00 UTC

  • EQUAL OPPORTUNITY: ITS NOT LIKE I”M ALL THAT GENTLE ON ANYONE I am just more hos

    EQUAL OPPORTUNITY: ITS NOT LIKE I”M ALL THAT GENTLE ON ANYONE

    I am just more hostile to pseudoscience and deceit than I am to error.

    I’m attacking the failures of:

    – The Anglo Enlightenment

    – The German Enlightenment

    – The Jewish (Cosmopolitan) Enlightenment

    – The French Enlightenment

    And the failure of the:

    – Russians

    – Muslims

    – Asians

    To have their own incomplete, or failed, enlightenments.

    Only the west discovered truth and high trust. But our enlightenments were incomplete. All of them. They all failed.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-25 11:59:00 UTC

  • NO, ROTHBARDIANISM IS OBJECTIVELY IMMORAL. PERIOD Cosmopolitan Libertarians (mea

    NO, ROTHBARDIANISM IS OBJECTIVELY IMMORAL. PERIOD

    Cosmopolitan Libertarians (meaning zero-commons advocates) do not perceive the commons as in their reproductive interests, so they reject paying for them. Mostly because they are rejects. It’s logical.

    Anglo libertarians (meaning advocates of commons free of perverse incentives), or what we call ‘small government, classical liberals’ are not rejects, and do not object to paying for commons. They object to predation, parasitism, commons that create perverse incentives.

    >>> That is called “the modern regulatory nation-state”, not “libertarians.”

    Curt Doolittle

    Actually no. Rothbardian ethics (Cosmopolitan Libertinism) circumvent not only all physical, but all normative commons consequent to intersubjectively verifiable property. As walter block and Rothbard argue, blackmail, abuse of asymmetric information, externality, and no promise of warranty are central to the libertarian ethical system. Period.

    In other words, Rothbardian ethics are the ethics of the ghetto: the low trust society of the ghetto and levant. Rothbard advanced Jewish ghetto ethics (separatism) as a substitute for anglo Saxon liberty (high trust and extensive commons). And while it is possible to use Rothbard’s ethical system for inter-state law (separatists), it is insufficient for intra-group law, since low trust increases both transaction costs and demand for authoritarian intervention to suppress retaliation for actions that invoke retaliation.

    So, no, it’s not an opinion, it’s merely fact. Rothbardian ethics are parasitic, and since they encourage parasitism, predatory, and non-rational, since demand for the state is equal to the lack of suppression (means of resolution) for impositions of costs both physical, institutional and normative.

    That’s just empirical. People retaliate. People pay high costs to retaliate.

    That’s because cooperation is disproportionately rewarding, so we evolved altruistic punishment in order to prevent disintegration of cooperation by the production of perverse incentives. This desire to retaliate on one hand and invest on the other is called our ‘moral intuitions’.

    Rothbardianism is objectively, rationally, empirically, immoral.

    Period.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-25 10:16:00 UTC

  • THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD IS A MORAL PHILOSOPHY —I suppose it would really annoy H

    THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD IS A MORAL PHILOSOPHY

    —I suppose it would really annoy Hawking to have it demonstrated that the scientific method is only a moral philosophy: a set of criticisms that allow you to warranty that your theories are free of existential impossibility, limitlessness, error, bias, imaginary content, wishful thinking, deception, and (objective) immorality (in the domain of the social sciences).—

    (The first person who gave me that idea was Ken Hopf. Too bad he is stuck in 1930.)


    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-25 08:52:00 UTC