Author: Curt Doolittle

(NLI)
Thoughts: I’ve been having a bit of a challenge(?) this year, cognitively herding our organization’s intellectual cats. 😉 That’s because people come to my work, our works, out of anxiety, frustration, anger, and even rage at the leftist machine of cultural destruction. So they are emotionally loaded even if intellectually exceptional.
Our people all share a personality trait of systematizing, hyper responsibility and hyper morality. So the work provides them a solution to the crisis of the age, and a framework with which to pursue their particular concerns across the individual to civilizational spectrum.
In other words, my work (our work) provides them both mindfulness in understanding the world, and the crisis of the age, as well as a framework to explain and advance their observations and ideas in the context of the work – which gives them legitimacy.
But as people adapt their ideas to the work sometimes they favor their ambitions OVER the work.
What does that mean? My work provides a unification of the sciences and as such universal DECIDABILITY, which you should consider a NEUTRAL and JUDICIAL means of testing the truth and objective morality of a political question.
Meaning, our function is to prohibit “the bads and leave the choice of ‘goods’ to political markets we call participatory government.
We will, however also describe the optimum institutional framework for prohibiting “the bad”. And that will in turn allow us to suggest policies for prohibiting “the bad”. And as such narrowing political choices to the resource limits of a policy in the selection and prioritization of choices of “the good”.
Sometimes, maintaining this judicial neutrality requires I assert a little more ‘persuasion’ than I prefer to in our all-volunteer organization. And it’s logical since some of our people are younger (and more angry) and older (more exasperated).
And some people are more interested in the small scale social, the medium sale socio-political, and the larger scale economic legal and political. Why? all of us percieve the world through our perception of our own agency.
So I must always try (struggle) to mature the organization by gradually persuading the institute Fellows and Members (and some followers), toward the neutral and judicial first, then a recommendation second, and as neutral an accusation, prosecution, and prevention as possible while maintaining judicial decorum and avoiding the emotional and inflammatory – especially when we are discussing sex, class, culture, civilization and race differences.
After all, for my part, I need judges. For Brandon’s part he needs activists. For the rest’s part they need to educate the public. And for some … well, they want to find meaning in life in the one organization that has a solution other than whining. 😉
You would not believe what understanding the world around you does for your mindfulness.
If you are willing to put in the effort to learn it. 😉

Cheers
CD