Curt Doolittle

Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response

  • I am the most painfully precise thinker working today. We are talking in tweets.

    I am the most painfully precise thinker working today. We are talking in tweets. My reputation is for painful informational density.
    That statement stands. There are criticisms of my work. They are few. But it isn’t any less complicated than any other of the sciences and logics.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-21 16:40:17 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1087389431877783553

    Reply addressees: @OctaveFilms @vdare

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1087381875780472832

    IN REPLY TO:

    @OctaveFilms

    @curtdoolittle @vdare Don’t obfuscate and pretend you are being precise.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1087381875780472832

  • SEE HOW THEY RUN. SECOND TODAY. Look at how they construct arguments in an attem

    SEE HOW THEY RUN. SECOND TODAY.

    Look at how they construct arguments in an attempt to preserve their comforts.

    —-“You still have to assume a framework for falsifying. If you don’t leave room for questioning said framework, it’s dogma. Is that not clear?”— Ben Quimby

    No it is not clear. logic is not dogma. justificationism is false and falsificationism is not. these are not open questions unless you find a means of opening them by falsifying falsificationism.

    An authority must command a dogma.

    Logic cannot be otherwise.

    Falsification cannot be otherwise.

    You can claim this is false somehow but defensive skepticism is just admission of failure to do so.

    —“To be fair, questioning doesn’t necessarily imply falsifying. Nobody wants to falsify logic, AFAIK; what they want is to “hint”, let’s say (b/c you can’t do this logically), that some truths, like logic itself, are meta-logical.”—Ben Quimby

    —“It’s not admissable, that’s true. And then, if they can’t testify to it, we have to resort to deciding on intent. That’s true. What a weird puzzle. I see both sides. Assuming there are such things as meta-logical truths, this would appear to throw a bit of a wrench in the whole prosecution of non-logical information thing. And you’re naturally worried about being consistent with what gets prosecuted. You can’t even argue that it’s worth sacrificing meta-logical truths, b/c your framework won’t even allow you to acknowledge them as such. And if it did, you might not make that argument. But as someone who can see these “truths”, at least provisionally, the answer here (cost-benefit analysis) is not at all clear to me.”—Ben Quimby

    “Define meta-logical truths”

    (There aren’t any)

    —-“[One can’t coherently define meta-coherence; that comes with the territory.] Take ‘change’ (process) for example. It’s not definable, it’s not falsifiable, and yet we don’t subordinate it to something lesser, like fiction. We acknowledge change as some kind of fact or truth, as something that “just is”, something that “can’t be otherwise”, and yet it hasn’t passed our formalized tests of truth.”— Ben Quimby

    :Meta-coherence” means intuitionistic, free-associations, not open to analysis. (There is nothing not open to analysis, only not open to testing.)

    To define change is very easy. Time=rate of entropy. Change is any perceivable difference in constant relations over time. That is what it means, and that is what it must mean, and that is what we are capable of percieving, because that is the only capacity of our neurons.

    —“Yeah, perception, difference, constancy, relations, time; more meta-analytical terms. They’re meaningful, no doubt; just not in a way we can reference concretely. As for neuronal capacities, I question whether we really know what we mean by that.

    At any rate, the point isn’t to debate this. The point is to test for the ability to step into a separate lens: Can you see what they see without interpreting via your current frame? Hence the “hard problem” question: Do you UNDERSTAND the hard problem as it is seen through the eyes of those who think it’s a valid problem? If you could show something like that, I think it would be extremely powerful.

    I look at things like this: If I can demonstrate comprehension of both my perspective and the other guy’s (on their terms), and they can only demonstrate comprehension of their own, then it’s more likely I hold the superior (more comprehensive) position. Anyways, I’m trying to get away from internet stuff these days. Yesterday was a spur of the moment type thing–a relapse, if you will. It shant happen again. Cheers.”—

    If i can demonstrate both but also the degree of falsity of both it is moel likely that the least false least fictional most parsimonious holds te superior more comprehensive position,

    The hardest part of each major revolution: reason, empiricism, science, darwinianism, and operationalism has been the recalcitrance of those invested in the comforting fictions that they hold dear.

    Testimonialism is a revolutionary as the revolutions in reason, empiricism, science, darwinianism, and operationalism.

    And like those who have malinvested in moralism, malinvested in scripturalism, malinvested in rationalism, the malinvestment is driven out of the market by superior investment.

    -Cheers 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-21 16:02:00 UTC

  • Your use of the word ‘culture’ in this sense is a code word (deceit, fraud) for

    Your use of the word ‘culture’ in this sense is a code word (deceit, fraud) for ‘rights of parasitism’. That’s all it means. Nothing else. if you followed my work you would be horrified but if intellectually honest, awed. Truth is what it is. Theft is what it is. …

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-21 15:50:06 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1087376801385644037

    Reply addressees: @OctaveFilms @vdare

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1087369547982749697

    IN REPLY TO:

    @OctaveFilms

    @curtdoolittle @vdare Fair enough on the semantics.

    But if we parse out all the word salad, a win for you is basically a re-writing of the Constitution that establishes a cultural hiearachy.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1087369547982749697

  • WIthin two weeks I think. Just took longer to get the site up, configured, debug

    WIthin two weeks I think. Just took longer to get the site up, configured, debugged, and running than we expected. Great stuff.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-21 15:01:53 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1087364667197046786

    Reply addressees: @AHayhes

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1087360990377721858

    IN REPLY TO:

    @AHayhes

    @curtdoolittle Curt, добрий день,
    Looking forward to online classes. What’s the eta?

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1087360990377721858

  • IT’S THE AGE OF LIES THAT’S HARD TO OVERCOME – PROPERTARIANISM ISN’T THAT DIFFIC

    IT’S THE AGE OF LIES THAT’S HARD TO OVERCOME – PROPERTARIANISM ISN’T THAT DIFFICULT

    by Neil A. Bucklew

    I am a working class person; 10 years in the marines; general labor almost all of my life. i study math and science and tech as a hobby. In no way could anyone consider me a genius.

    I do not have much trouble understanding Curt at all. I merely have to check some sources on things I have little knowledge in.

    It has been said we live in an age of mysticism. but that is a euphemism for lying. we live in an age of lies. we live in a cult of escalating lies, and have done so for over a century. holding on to lies makes understanding truth more difficult.

    You do not have to have a giant brain or iq to understand propertarianism is. just stop lying to yourself. lies are information that take processing time. You don’t let them in your computer, so don’t let them in your head.

    —-

    (CD: I think the issue that makes the difference is life experience. Military and work with common folk is educational in ways that the academy, bureaucracy, and white collar privilege create ignorance.)

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-21 11:55:00 UTC

  • A TWITTER CONVERSATION WITH THE INFORMED OPPOSITION (useful counter-argument for

    A TWITTER CONVERSATION WITH THE INFORMED OPPOSITION

    (useful counter-argument for you)

    Cowardice is all that separates us from victory.

    —“What constitutes a victory?”—

    A victory consists in the restoration of the constitution to Rule of Law by the Natural Law of Reciprocity, the elimination of accumulate rent seeking, and the prohibition on commercial, financial, bureaucratic, academic, and political speech that is false or irreciprocal.

    —“So limiting free speech is a victory. Sounds kinda fascist.”—

    Well we eliminate reciprocity in private life, and falsehood, fraud, and deceit in commercial speech, but not in economic, academic, and political speech. Turns out we can eliminate them in public speech. (BTW: “Sounds Kinda” is an admission of ignorance, not an argument)

    —“Fair enough on the semantics. But if we parse out all the word salad, a win for you is basically a re-writing of the Constitution that establishes a cultural hiearachy.”—

    You mean, a win restores non-parasitism, and restores reciprocity, under which those who are productive require non-parasitism upon the commons from those who are not, in exchange for redistribution. (Don’t accuse me of word salad as pretense of equality of comprehension.)

    Your use of the word ‘culture’ in this sense is a code word (deceit, fraud) for ‘rights of parasitism’. That’s all it means. Nothing else. if you followed my work you would be horrified but if intellectually honest, awed. Truth is what it is. Theft is what it is. …

    The first question of philosophy is ‘why not commit suicide?’; the first question of ethics is ‘why not kill you and take what is yours?”; the first of politics “Why should me and mine not end, enslave, enserf you?” The only answer to the second two questions is ‘reciprocity’.

    Once we can no longer cooperate the, the second and third questions are all that come into play. So, either revolt, separate, prosper, and speciate, or the strong eat the weak. I’m for separatism. If separatism fails, then any alternative is superior to continued parasitism. 😉

    I’m intuiting healthy IQ on your end. Which is why I’m answering the question despite our differences in objective. The herd and the female strategy of equality, and the pack and the male strategy of meritocracy. We are wealthy enough now to separate and pursue both not one.

    No one needs to be oppressed except under monopoly. And monopoly is simply tyranny whether male strategy or female strategy. So, revolt, separate, prosper, speciate.

    -cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-21 11:00:00 UTC

  • “WHAT I WANT” by Bill Joslin I don’t want a prophet or an equivalent. I don’t ev

    “WHAT I WANT”

    by Bill Joslin

    I don’t want a prophet or an equivalent. I don’t even want a leader.

    I want to be able to put gas in my truck without having to check if that’s going to cut into our grocery bill.

    I want my Daughter to have a lifelong home – but at more than $200k a year we can’t afford in Toronto, because it would take 25 years to pay it off – and we only have about 20 left it us.

    I’d like my daughter to be able to form a family and properly care for it without it demanding 60 hour work weeks from both parents (and to the point above – take an entire lifetime to pay off)

    I’d like my phone and data bill to not be the second highest investment I make every month (costs as much as a car payment)

    I’d like to go a day without having to defend my race, ancestors and culture to my daughter due to nonsense thrown at her daily.

    I’d like a future for my progeny that contains happiness which doesn’t resemble a Pyrrhic victory.

    I don’t want the future to look back at me, mine and my generation with resentment and regret (like I do to boomer et al) but with respect and inspiration…

    And I want the path to achieve this to not require me to turn into a monster to change the course of our civilization.

    I don’t want the genocide which is on our horizon.

    ( It leads to human extinction.)

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-20 18:24:00 UTC

  • So is this a backup account or are you pretending you’re this person?

    So is this a backup account or are you pretending you’re this person?

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-20 18:23:00 UTC

  • Good Criticism

    Good criticism. A few things.

    —“He presents as bumbling intellectual, not rabble rouser – he’s barely coherent for most of us let alone capable of inspiring a mob.”–

    Totally agree. Although my behavior as CEO, and as an intellectual consist of very, very different techniques. And I don’t particularly like myself as a CEO, even if I am good at it.

    —“He does, however, have training in people management or is naturally good at it. He knows how to bring men into a fold, how to flatter them and make them feel special or important.”—

    Um. I use the “king of the hill game” method of teaching.

    –“…cult…”—

    I would be the worst possible cult leader. I’ve said all along that ‘leadership will emerge’ (and it does). Because I do not see myself, or want to see myself, as other than a mad scientist of political revolution. If I was a cult leader type I would try to hold all the power myself rather than try to build a cadre of talented people, and train them to go out and be the equivalent of the jesuits and inquisition against the left. It is very hard to see my constitutional reform as anything other than an extremely practical and thorough reformation of the 20th century postwar order and the redistribution of capital to the middle class from the parasitic classes. This occurs in every civilization with relative frequency. We must continually incrementally suppress parasitism – because man continually incrementally invents means of parasitism. Now Picketey would say that this is a natural feature of current capitalism. Pareto would say it is a necessary feature of the production of wealth. Evolution would say that it is merely class rotation. And I would say it is merely a failure to maintain the competition of via negativa law and via positiva markets to continuously incrementally suppress new inventions of parasitism whenever new means of rents are invented. My view, like the georgists, would be that land rents go to the monarchy, and taxation go to the commons.

    —-“It’s not a cult. My use of that word was flippant. A better description would be that the primary motivation, at the initial stage for newcomers is to win favour with the big chief (Curt) and less so commit fully to the ideas. You do however delegate to a considerable degree and, as you say, are more than happy to bring others up than hold onto the power base.”—

    —“You’re also genuinely motivated by good ideas and not ego which is quite rare. My point really was that it’s extremely difficult to eliminate the negative aspects of ‘Alpha-worship’. Corruption of the initial framework, regardless of how well it began, then becomes inevitable as members less capable of handling the ideas defend the position, or territory, more aggressively in order to maintain their position and remain useful. I notice that followers who seem to actually understand the material are less supplicatory, less aggressive to criticisms by outsiders and are generally less sycophantic.”—

    I agree. On the other hand i am very grateful that these devotees prevent GSRRM, defend the brand, and save me the time and effort of self defense. This discourages idiots from wasting my time so that we get better criticisms. The one thing I get from the best people is to not waste time with those who are a waste of time.

  • Good Criticism

    Good criticism. A few things.

    —“He presents as bumbling intellectual, not rabble rouser – he’s barely coherent for most of us let alone capable of inspiring a mob.”–

    Totally agree. Although my behavior as CEO, and as an intellectual consist of very, very different techniques. And I don’t particularly like myself as a CEO, even if I am good at it.

    —“He does, however, have training in people management or is naturally good at it. He knows how to bring men into a fold, how to flatter them and make them feel special or important.”—

    Um. I use the “king of the hill game” method of teaching.

    –“…cult…”—

    I would be the worst possible cult leader. I’ve said all along that ‘leadership will emerge’ (and it does). Because I do not see myself, or want to see myself, as other than a mad scientist of political revolution. If I was a cult leader type I would try to hold all the power myself rather than try to build a cadre of talented people, and train them to go out and be the equivalent of the jesuits and inquisition against the left. It is very hard to see my constitutional reform as anything other than an extremely practical and thorough reformation of the 20th century postwar order and the redistribution of capital to the middle class from the parasitic classes. This occurs in every civilization with relative frequency. We must continually incrementally suppress parasitism – because man continually incrementally invents means of parasitism. Now Picketey would say that this is a natural feature of current capitalism. Pareto would say it is a necessary feature of the production of wealth. Evolution would say that it is merely class rotation. And I would say it is merely a failure to maintain the competition of via negativa law and via positiva markets to continuously incrementally suppress new inventions of parasitism whenever new means of rents are invented. My view, like the georgists, would be that land rents go to the monarchy, and taxation go to the commons.

    —-“It’s not a cult. My use of that word was flippant. A better description would be that the primary motivation, at the initial stage for newcomers is to win favour with the big chief (Curt) and less so commit fully to the ideas. You do however delegate to a considerable degree and, as you say, are more than happy to bring others up than hold onto the power base.”—

    —“You’re also genuinely motivated by good ideas and not ego which is quite rare. My point really was that it’s extremely difficult to eliminate the negative aspects of ‘Alpha-worship’. Corruption of the initial framework, regardless of how well it began, then becomes inevitable as members less capable of handling the ideas defend the position, or territory, more aggressively in order to maintain their position and remain useful. I notice that followers who seem to actually understand the material are less supplicatory, less aggressive to criticisms by outsiders and are generally less sycophantic.”—

    I agree. On the other hand i am very grateful that these devotees prevent GSRRM, defend the brand, and save me the time and effort of self defense. This discourages idiots from wasting my time so that we get better criticisms. The one thing I get from the best people is to not waste time with those who are a waste of time.