Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1546872832 Timestamp) —“Meta question: what’s the best way to ask off-topic questions to you or other experts?”— Matt Evans Just like this, by (a) posting the question in the feed, or (b) posting the question in any comment with ‘off topic’ in the heading. Or via PM. Up to you. —“Actual question: What do you expect the status of Christians to be in a propertarian society? That is, specifically, Christians who are firmly convinced of the supernatural aspects of Christianity; the literal resurrection, the actual divinity of Christ. Not cultural Christians or be nice to people Christians, but folks who believe in a literal Noah’s Ark [for example].”— Christianity is compatible with natural law. (I consider myself a christian and a heathen, and an aryan.) Christian dogma argued in abrahamic verse violates that law if we claim it is true rather than allegorical). My practical solution and opinion opinion is that we are seeing the last generations of dogmatists, and that the vast body of ethically and culturally christian peoples would prefer a reformed church and a restoration of the separation of powers between the church (family and community: norms) and the state ( commerce, dispute, and warfare: laws ). That said, because christianity is compatible with most of western civ, and because christianity is compatible with natural law in practice, then this is not a matter for the law for the simple reason that we cannot change it except by prohibition and by prohibition cause war within our peoples. —“E.g. “they all see how foolish they are and repent of supernaturalism”, or “they are slaughtered to make way for higher IQ people”, or “they are allowed to live peacefully among us so long as they abide by non-parasitism”.—- I think I see it as simply speaking in archaic semitic language vs modern european language. And that the underlying behavior is better brought about by self authoring than superstition. But the underlying behavior is fine. —-“Assuming something like the latter [survival and some degree of tolerated inclusion], raises interesting policy points like “they may not serve as judges” or “they may not testify in courts”, or perhaps more nuanced, “they may testify about things which are falsifiable, but any proclamation of supernatural acts in public our in courts would be disallowed”— Well, this is already in the law. Yes. —“I did a quick search on the website and didn’t really find this covered ; I apologize for missing it if it’s been covered already.”— Religion is the hard part of social science and I have spent about four years on it, with this last year and a half quite a bit of focus and this winter even more. I think I have solved it. That said, faith provides mindfulness, if at high social and political cost, where self authoring provides mindfulness at high personal and economic cost. And we cannot morally deprive people of mindfulness without providing the alternative, and it is extremely difficult to train late life people in self authoring compared to faith. —“Related question: America tolerates and even advantages, for instance, Amish communities today: they are exempted from certain taxes and military services. It is probably correct to argue that Amish communities are parasitic, in the sense that they benefit from the military security of the nation that encompasses them, without contributing able bodied men and certain types of tax revenues.”— There is nothing parasitic about amish communities, they preserve our ancient tradition of voluntary corporation and their persistence is of extremely high value for that purpose. So think of it the other way, that they are providing us with a service – demonstrated not claimed – of what made the west high trust during our early and middle ages. —“What’s the outcome of Amish or Quaker communities under a propertarian paradigm?”— They are a living monument to our past, and we would be fools to interfere with it.

  • (FB 1546866260 Timestamp) NERD HUMOR FROM James Santagata (I can’t share the thi

    (FB 1546866260 Timestamp) NERD HUMOR FROM James Santagata (I can’t share the third one because it ‘crosses the line’) I think taleb really damaged his rep again…. damn.

  • (FB 1546823810 Timestamp) PROPAGANDA AND MY RESPONSE TO IT. (heated topic warnin

    (FB 1546823810 Timestamp) PROPAGANDA AND MY RESPONSE TO IT. (heated topic warning) Some clown spreading propaganda….

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1546872832 Timestamp) —“Meta question: what’s the best way to ask off-topic questions to you or other experts?”— Matt Evans Just like this, by (a) posting the question in the feed, or (b) posting the question in any comment with ‘off topic’ in the heading. Or via PM. Up to you. —“Actual question: What do you expect the status of Christians to be in a propertarian society? That is, specifically, Christians who are firmly convinced of the supernatural aspects of Christianity; the literal resurrection, the actual divinity of Christ. Not cultural Christians or be nice to people Christians, but folks who believe in a literal Noah’s Ark [for example].”— Christianity is compatible with natural law. (I consider myself a christian and a heathen, and an aryan.) Christian dogma argued in abrahamic verse violates that law if we claim it is true rather than allegorical). My practical solution and opinion opinion is that we are seeing the last generations of dogmatists, and that the vast body of ethically and culturally christian peoples would prefer a reformed church and a restoration of the separation of powers between the church (family and community: norms) and the state ( commerce, dispute, and warfare: laws ). That said, because christianity is compatible with most of western civ, and because christianity is compatible with natural law in practice, then this is not a matter for the law for the simple reason that we cannot change it except by prohibition and by prohibition cause war within our peoples. —“E.g. “they all see how foolish they are and repent of supernaturalism”, or “they are slaughtered to make way for higher IQ people”, or “they are allowed to live peacefully among us so long as they abide by non-parasitism”.—- I think I see it as simply speaking in archaic semitic language vs modern european language. And that the underlying behavior is better brought about by self authoring than superstition. But the underlying behavior is fine. —-“Assuming something like the latter [survival and some degree of tolerated inclusion], raises interesting policy points like “they may not serve as judges” or “they may not testify in courts”, or perhaps more nuanced, “they may testify about things which are falsifiable, but any proclamation of supernatural acts in public our in courts would be disallowed”— Well, this is already in the law. Yes. —“I did a quick search on the website and didn’t really find this covered ; I apologize for missing it if it’s been covered already.”— Religion is the hard part of social science and I have spent about four years on it, with this last year and a half quite a bit of focus and this winter even more. I think I have solved it. That said, faith provides mindfulness, if at high social and political cost, where self authoring provides mindfulness at high personal and economic cost. And we cannot morally deprive people of mindfulness without providing the alternative, and it is extremely difficult to train late life people in self authoring compared to faith. —“Related question: America tolerates and even advantages, for instance, Amish communities today: they are exempted from certain taxes and military services. It is probably correct to argue that Amish communities are parasitic, in the sense that they benefit from the military security of the nation that encompasses them, without contributing able bodied men and certain types of tax revenues.”— There is nothing parasitic about amish communities, they preserve our ancient tradition of voluntary corporation and their persistence is of extremely high value for that purpose. So think of it the other way, that they are providing us with a service – demonstrated not claimed – of what made the west high trust during our early and middle ages. —“What’s the outcome of Amish or Quaker communities under a propertarian paradigm?”— They are a living monument to our past, and we would be fools to interfere with it.

  • (FB 1546866260 Timestamp) NERD HUMOR FROM James Santagata (I can’t share the thi

    (FB 1546866260 Timestamp) NERD HUMOR FROM James Santagata (I can’t share the third one because it ‘crosses the line’) I think taleb really damaged his rep again…. damn.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1547131377 Timestamp) –“PHILOSOPHY MUST BE DRAGGED OUT OF THE IVORY TOWER AND INTO THE MARKETPLACE OF IDEAS”– Um. I don’t think so. Unless it has a dramatic reformation. via negativa, measurement, science, economics, and law, versus via positiva, philosophy, theology, occult, daydreaming. While I find no difference between theorizing and philosophizing that is because I do not engage in empty verbalisms or sophisms, pseudosciences, nor the magic of ignoring costs. Philosophy can be laundered such that philosophizing(imaginary and verbal) and theorizing (existential and actionable) are essentially identical by the use of operational language, the full accounting of costs, and a preface of the choice of goods as those of the equalitarian herd, or the hierarchical pack. But as practiced, and as the demotion of the discipline to a peer to theology has evidenced, measuring, theorizing, philosophizing, and theologizing are simply analogous to description, deduction, induction, abduction, and guessing, using increasingly specious excuses for one’s guesswork. The athenian tradition did not account for costs. There are two principle reasons for it: (1) the peerage was small and wealthy with common interests – and costs were as rude then as today (2) discussion of costs immediately changes from ideals to reals thereby self selecting into class interests (3) mathematical idealism influenced greco-roman thought so heavily, giving such sophism an unearned legitimacy. (4) historically religion spoke in these ideal terms, philosophy an improvement upon them, and empiricism an improvement upon philosophy, and science an improvement upon empiricism, just as ‘Testimonialism’ is an improvement upon science. (empiricism vs science distinguished by the 20th’s implementation of operational language, and testimonialism by the completion of the scientific method). It is time for philosophy to either abandon idealism, sophism, and the ignorance of costs, or to be further demoted into the theology of ideals. Otherwise, like theology, it cannot compete in the marketplace of ideas. That is what the evidence shows us. People ask me every single day what philosophy to read and I tell them ‘none of it’ other than perhaps the bookends of Aristotle and Nietzsche. The rest is all measurement, science, economics, Law, and history. There are no crimes equal to those of abraham, saul, and mohammed in the ancient world, and marx, freud, boas, in the 19th, and adorno, derrida and foucault in the 20th. We can complain about Augustine and Aquinas as apologists, but by them the damage was done. It is very hard to criticize archimedes, democritus, aristotle, epicurus, zeno in the ancient world, and bacon, newton, hobbes, lock, smith, hume in the modern, or poincare, maxwell, darwin, menger, pareto, spencer, nietzsche and many others in the 19th, and einstein, watson-crick, and the many others in the 20th. Precision of our knowledge increases thereby justifying the pack, offset by counter-revolutions in denial, sophism, pseudoscience, and supernaturalism expanding the herd. And the war between neolithic feminine dysgenic herd strategy of the levant, and the bronze age masculine eugenic pack strategy of indo europeans. Truth is undesirable to the many.


    https://www.newstatesman.com/2019/01/philosophy-must-be-dragged-out-ivory-tower-and-marketplace-ideas?
  • Curt Doolittle posted in Politics: Policy, Theory, Philosophy.

    (FB 1546989218 Timestamp) James, if this is a forum for discussion, then it’s a value. Which would require posting both sides of the debate. If this is a form for you to express your frustrations then it is no longer anything to do with theory policy and philosophy, but simply just emotional. Just create an “I hate trump” forum and put it there. But at present you’re not acting any differently from the alt-right-green-frog folks except your posting pseudo-rational propaganda instead of openly irrational green-frog cartoons. You have energy and a particular gift. And if you employ it honestly then you can make a contribution to the world. I’m honest about my work and my bias. (and yes, the fact that The Clinton Foundation defrauded me of $2M they said they would pay me for developing the greenhouse-gas measurement software, after we rescued their efforts in India at Microsoft’s request; and the fact that I have direct experience with these people – including Murdoch’s wife – might color my judgement a bit. These are ‘bad’ immoral, people for whom lying is simply a justifiable means of achieving their ends.) Anger destroys honesty. Half truths are lies. Half arguments are just half truths. Hence why I argue in the manner that I do: the only ‘good’ is exchange. The only ‘moral’ is non-imposition of costs.

  • Curt Doolittle posted in Politics: Policy, Theory, Philosophy.

    (FB 1546989218 Timestamp) James, if this is a forum for discussion, then it’s a value. Which would require posting both sides of the debate. If this is a form for you to express your frustrations then it is no longer anything to do with theory policy and philosophy, but simply just emotional. Just create an “I hate trump” forum and put it there. But at present you’re not acting any differently from the alt-right-green-frog folks except your posting pseudo-rational propaganda instead of openly irrational green-frog cartoons. You have energy and a particular gift. And if you employ it honestly then you can make a contribution to the world. I’m honest about my work and my bias. (and yes, the fact that The Clinton Foundation defrauded me of $2M they said they would pay me for developing the greenhouse-gas measurement software, after we rescued their efforts in India at Microsoft’s request; and the fact that I have direct experience with these people – including Murdoch’s wife – might color my judgement a bit. These are ‘bad’ immoral, people for whom lying is simply a justifiable means of achieving their ends.) Anger destroys honesty. Half truths are lies. Half arguments are just half truths. Hence why I argue in the manner that I do: the only ‘good’ is exchange. The only ‘moral’ is non-imposition of costs.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1547246518 Timestamp) SO WHAT DOES GA BRING TO DERRIDA’S TABLE? All I see is a series of publications using hand waving as an attempt to provide a pseudoscientific defense of Derrida, in that ‘well’ everything evolved from language therefore we can evolve anything with language. In other words, postmodernism. GA tells us nothing that we don’t already know. So, what is it that GA brings to the table? What can we deduce from it? What application can we put it to? What purpose does this theory solve? I understand language as consisting of continuous recursive production of transactional measurements and linguistic competition for demonstrated results as improving measurements (truth) and biasing measurements (frauds and deceits). Whether a cliff or a climb is irrelevant. The central problem is one of computational costs in that production versus time and energy costs of that production. In other words, language tends to be pragmatically adjusted for precision over time, given the context. So what? That means we can tell truth and lie. It means that competitive ability highly reflects linguistic precision. It means that competitive ability provides competitive advantage. Because otherwise physical marginal indifference provides too little competitive advantage. So what does postmodern literary drivel bring to an otherwise well understood table? What I hear is that ‘its a useful means of manipulating people by deceit.’ People lacking knowledge, power, achievement, and capital like the priests of the middle east attempting to destroy the empire with christianity judaism and islam. Lies are a competitive strategy. The entire abrahamic artifice is based upon the competitive utility of lying.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1547244310 Timestamp) LIES OF RIGHT ABSOLUTISTS AND LEFT ABSOLUTISTS ARE STILL JUST LIES – AN ADMISSION OF FAILURE. The difference between this article and some bit of occult nonsense by Evola is simply the flavor of sophism. No one disputes that language makes possible a multitude of paradigmatic lies of coercion, but it makes only one most parsimonious paradigmatic truth of decidability. The Pretense of Wisdom in the Tempo of Syllables, and the power of suggestion by loading and framing inarticulate and untestable prose. “Woo Woo” for the post-theological era. Science requires knowledge. “Woo” takes advantage of ignorance. Leftist or right lies are indifferent. No one disputes the relationship between consciousness and language – only the degree. It still does not justify that the history of man is a long filter of anthropocentric perception and intuition as we gradually eliminate ignorance, error, bias and deceit – despite the priests. Termination of lies and liars regardless of herd or pack is in the interest of both herd and pack. https://thejournalofneoabsolutism.wordpress.com/2017/05/02/the-anthropoetics-of-power/